TortsQualified immunityExcessive forceFourth AmendmentSection 1983qualified immunityexcessive forcedeadly force
Facts
Construing the facts in Haugen's favor, Brosseau responded to a fight at Haugen's mother's house, learned there was a felony no-bail warrant for Haugen, and pursued him after he ran and hid in the neighborhood. Haugen eventually jumped into a Jeep in the driveway, ignored Brosseau's commands to get out, and started the vehicle after Brosseau tried unsuccessfully to stop him. As the Jeep started or shortly after it began to move, Brosseau jumped back and fired one shot through the rear driver's side window, hitting Haugen in the back. Brosseau later stated that she fired because she feared for other officers on foot, occupied vehicles in Haugen's path, and any other nearby citizens.
Issue
Whether, at the time Brosseau shot Haugen, clearly established law gave fair notice that shooting a fleeing suspect who was attempting vehicular flight and posed a potential risk to persons in the immediate area violated the Fourth Amendment. The Court did not decide the underlying constitutional question.
Rule
Qualified immunity protects an officer unless, in the specific context of the case, clearly established law made it clear to a reasonable officer that her conduct was unlawful in the situation she confronted. General propositions from Graham and Garner are not enough except in an obvious case; the inquiry must be particularized to the facts.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In Tulsa, Officer Maya Keene tried to arrest Devin Marsh on an outstanding felony warrant after Marsh sprinted to a sedan parked beside a crowded apartment lot. Marsh ignored commands to exit, started the car, and began pulling forward as several officers and residents stood nearby. Keene fired one shot into the car. Marsh sues under § 1983 and cites only the general rule that deadly force is unreasonable against an unarmed, nondangerous suspect and the general objective-reasonableness test.
Assuming the court addresses only qualified immunity, which is the best result?
Explanation. The majority held that the clearly established inquiry must be undertaken in the specific context of the case, not at a high level of generality. General propositions from the major excessive-force cases are not enough unless the case is obvious. In a vehicle-flight scenario involving possible danger to persons nearby, those general standards do not by themselves give fair notice. The court may therefore grant qualified immunity without deciding that no constitutional violation occurred.