Mullenix v. Luna

sentative of the ESTATE OF LEIJA, et al.

on petition for writ of certiorari to the united

states court of appeals for the fth circuit

No. 14–1143. Decided November 9, 2015 Israel Leija, Jr., led officers on a high-speed car chase in an attempt to evade service of an arrest warrant. During the chase, he twice told a police dispatcher that he had a gun and would shoot officers if they did not abandon their pursuit. The dispatcher relayed the threats, together with a report that Leija might be intoxicated, to all concerned officers, including petitioner Chadrin Mullenix, who had driven ahead to an overpass above the interstate. Once there, Mullenix discussed with other officers the idea of shooting Leija's car to disable it, even though he had not been trained in this tactic and had not attempted it before. Mul-lenix nonetheless took up a shooting position and learned that another officer was beneath the overpass. As Leija approached, Mullenix fred multiple shots, killing Leija. Respondents sued Mullenix under 42 U. S. C. § 1983, alleging that he had violated the Fourth Amendment by using excessive force against Leija. Mullenix moved for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity, but the District Court denied the motion. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, concluding that Mul-lenix was not entitled to qualified immunity because the law clearly established “that a reasonable officer would have known that the use of deadly force, absent a sufficiently substantial and immediate threat, violated the Fourth Amendment.” 773 F. 3d 712, 725. Held: Because the constitutional rule applied by the Fifth Circuit was not “ `beyond debate,' ” Stanton v. Sims, 571 U. S. 3, 6, the Fifth Circuit wrongly decided that Mullenix was not entitled to qualified immunity. In assessing whether Mullenix violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known, the court improperly defined the clearly established law at a high level of generality rather than asking whether the violative nature of the particular conduct is clearly established. Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U. S. 731, 742. Here, Mullenix confronted a reportedly intoxicated fugitive, set on avoiding capture through high-speed vehicular fight, who twice during his fight had threatened to shoot police officers, and who was moments away from encountering an officer underneath the overpass. Far from clarifying the issue, this Court's excessive force cases involv-ing car chases reveal the hazy legal backdrop against which Mullenix

acted. See Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U. S. 194; Scott v. Harris, 550 U. S. 372; and Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U. S. 765. Nor have cases decided by lower courts since Brosseau clearly established that deadly force is inappropriate in response to conduct like Leija's. Finally, the fact that the danger Leija represented was less substantial than the threats that courts have previously found sufficient to justify deadly force says little, if anything, about whether such force was reasonable in the circumstances here because qualified immunity protects actions in “the `hazy border between excessive and acceptable force.' ” Brosseau, 573 U. S., at 201 (quoting Saucier v. Katz, 533 U. S. 194, 206). Certiorari granted; 773 F. 3d 712, reversed.

Per Curiam.

On the night of March 23, 2010, Sergeant Randy Baker of the Tulia, Texas, Police Department followed Israel Leija, Jr., to a drive-in restaurant, with a warrant for his arrest. 773 F. 3d 712, 715–716 (CA5 2014). When Baker approached Leija's car and informed him that he was under arrest, Leija sped off, headed for Interstate 27. 2013 WL 4017124, *1 (ND Tex., Aug. 7, 2013). Baker gave chase and was quickly joined by Trooper Gabriel Rodriguez of the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS). 773 F. 3d, at 716.

Leija entered the interstate and led the officers on an 18-minute chase at speeds between 85 and 110 miles per hour. Ibid. Twice during the chase, Leija called the Tulia Police dispatcher, claiming to have a gun and threatening to shoot at police officers if they did not abandon their pursuit. The dispatcher relayed Leija's threats, together with a report that Leija might be intoxicated, to all concerned officers.

As Baker and Rodriguez maintained their pursuit, other law enforcement officers set up tire spikes at three locations. Officer Troy Ducheneaux of the Canyon Police Department manned the spike strip at the first location Leija was expected to reach, beneath the overpass at Cemetery Road. Ducheneaux and the other officers had received training on the deployment of spike strips, including on how to take a defensive position so as to minimize the risk posed by the passing driver. Ibid.

As Mullenix waited for Leija to arrive, he and another of-fcer, Randall County Sheriff's Deputy Tom Shipman, discussed whether Mullenix's plan would work and how and where to shoot the vehicle to best carry it out. 2013 WL 4017124, *2. Shipman also informed Mullenix that another officer was located beneath the overpass. 773 F. 3d, at 717.

Approximately three minutes after Mullenix took up his shooting position, he spotted Leija's vehicle, with Rodriguez in pursuit. As Leija approached the overpass, Mullenix fred six shots. Leija's car continued forward beneath the overpass, where it engaged the spike strip, hit the median, and rolled 2½ times. It was later determined that Leija had been killed by Mullenix's shots, four of which struck his upper body. There was no evidence that any of Mullenix's

Respondents sued Mullenix under Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U. S. C. § 1983, alleging that he had violated the Fourth Amendment by using excessive force against Leija. Mul-lenix moved for summary judgment on the ground of quali-fed immunity, but the District Court denied his motion, finding that “[t]here are genuine issues of fact as to whether Trooper Mullenix acted recklessly, or acted as a reasonable, trained peace officer would have acted in the same or similar circumstances.” 2013 WL 4017124, *6.

Mullenix appealed, and the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed. 765 F. 3d 531 (2014). The court agreed with the District Court that the “immediacy of the risk posed by Leija is a disputed fact that a reasonable jury could find either in the plaintiffs' favor or in the officer's favor, precluding us from concluding that Mullenix acted objectively reasonably as a matter of law.” Id., at 538.

Judge King dissented. She described the “ `fact issue' referenced by the majority” as “simply a restatement of the objective reasonableness test that applies to Fourth Amendment excessive force claims,” which, she noted, the Supreme Court has held “ `is a pure question of law.' ” Id., at 544– 545 (quoting Scott v. Harris, 550 U. S. 372, 381, n. 8 (2007)). Turning to that legal question, Judge King concluded that Mullenix's actions were objectively reasonable. When Mul-lenix fred, she emphasized, he knew not only that Leija had threatened to shoot the officers involved in his pursuit, but also that Leija was seconds away from encountering such an officer beneath the overpass. Judge King also dismissed the notion that Mullenix should have given the spike strips a chance to work. She explained that because spike strips are often ineffective, and because officers operating them are vulnerable to gunfire from passing cars, Mullenix reasonably feared that the officers manning them faced a significant risk of harm. 765 F. 3d, at 548–549.

We address only the qualified immunity question, not whether there was a Fourth Amendment violation in the first place, and now reverse.

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct “ `does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.' ” Pearson v. Calla-han, 555 U. S. 223, 231 (2009) (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 800, 818 (1982)). A clearly established right is one that is “sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right.” Reichle v. Howards, 566 U. S. 658, 664 (2012) (internal quota-

“We have repeatedly told courts . . . not to define clearly established law at a high level of generality.” al-Kidd, supra, at 742. The dispositive question is “whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established.” Ibid. (emphasis added). This inquiry “ `must be undertaken in light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad general proposition.' ” Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U. S. 194, 198 (2004) ( per curiam ) (quoting Saucier v. Katz, 533 U. S. 194, 201 (2001)). Such specificity is especially important in the Fourth Amendment context, where the Court has recognized that “[i]t is sometimes difficult for an officer to determine how the relevant legal doctrine, here excessive force, will apply to the factual situation the officer confronts.” 533 U. S., at 205.

In this case, the Fifth Circuit held that Mullenix violated the clearly established rule that a police officer may not “ `use deadly force against a feeing felon who does not pose a sufi-fcient threat of harm to the officer or others.' ” 773 F. 3d, at 725. Yet this Court has previously considered—and rejected—almost that exact formulation of the qualified immunity question in the Fourth Amendment context. In Bros-seau, which also involved the shooting of a suspect feeing by car, the Ninth Circuit denied qualified immunity on the ground that the officer had violated the clearly established rule, set forth in Tennessee v. Garner , 471 U. S. 1 (1985), that “deadly force is only permissible where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others.” Haugen v. Brosseau, 339 F. 3d 857, 873 (CA9 2003) (internal quotation

Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U. S. 635 (1987), is also instructive on the required degree of specificity. There, the lower court had denied qualified immunity based on the clearly established “right to be free from warrantless searches of one's home unless the searching officers have probable cause and there are exigent circumstances.” Id., at 640. This Court faulted that formulation for failing to address the actual question at issue: whether “the circumstances with which Anderson was confronted . . . constitute[d] probable cause and exigent circumstances.” Id., at 640–641. Without answering that question, the Court explained, the conclusion that Anderson's search was objectively unreasonable did not “follow immediately” from—and thus was not clearly established by—the principle that warrantless searches not supported by probable cause and exigent circumstances violate the Fourth Amendment. Id., at 641.

In this case, Mullenix confronted a reportedly intoxicated fugitive, set on avoiding capture through high-speed vehicular fight, who twice during his fight had threatened to shoot police officers, and who was moments away from encountering an officer at Cemetery Road. The relevant inquiry is

Far from clarifying the issue, excessive force cases involv-ing car chases reveal the hazy legal backdrop against which Mullenix acted. In Brosseau itself, the Court held that an officer did not violate clearly established law when she shot a feeing suspect out of fear that he endangered “other off-cers on foot who [she] believed were in the immediate area,” “the occupied vehicles in [his] path,” and “any other citizens who might be in the area.” 543 U. S., at 197 (first alteration in original; internal quotation marks omitted; emphasis added). The threat Leija posed was at least as immediate as that presented by a suspect who had just begun to drive off and was headed only in the general direction of officers and bystanders. Id., at 196–197. By the time Mullenix fred, Leija had led police on a 25-mile chase at extremely high speeds, was reportedly intoxicated, had twice threatened to shoot officers, and was racing toward an officer's location.

This Court has considered excessive force claims in connection with high-speed chases on only two occasions since Brosseau. In Scott v. Harris, 550 U. S. 372, the Court held that an officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment by ramming the car of a fugitive whose reckless driving “posed an actual and imminent threat to the lives of any pedestrians who might have been present, to other civilian motorists, and to the officers involved in the chase.” Id., at 384. And in Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U. S. 765 (2014), the Court reaf-firmed Scott by holding that an officer acted reasonably when he fatally shot a fugitive who was “intent on resuming” a

The dissent focuses on the availability of spike strips as an alternative means of terminating the chase. It argues that even if Leija posed a threat sufficient to justify deadly force in some circumstances, Mullenix nevertheless contravened clearly established law because he did not wait to see if the spike strips would work before taking action. Spike strips, however, present dangers of their own, not only to drivers who encounter them at speeds between 85 and 110 miles per hour, but also to officers manning them. See, e. g., Thomp-son v. Mercer , 762 F. 3d 433, 440 (CA5 2014); Brief for National Association of Police Organizations et al. as Amici Cu-riae 15–16. Nor are spike strips always successful in ending the chase. See, e. g., Cordova v. Aragon, 569 F. 3d 1183, 1186 (CA10 2009); Brief for National Association of Police Organizations et al. as Amici Curiae 16 (citing examples). The dissent can cite no case from this Court denying qualified immunity because officers entitled to terminate a high-speed chase selected one dangerous alternative over another.

Even so, the dissent argues, there was no governmental interest that justified acting before Leija's car hit the spikes. Mullenix explained, however, that he feared Leija might attempt to shoot at or run over the officers manning the spike

More fundamentally, the dissent repeats the Fifth Circuit's error. It defines the qualified immunity inquiry at a high level of generality—whether any governmental interest jus-tifed choosing one tactic over another—and then flails to consider that question in “the specific context of the case.” Brosseau, supra, at 198 (internal quotation marks omitted). As in Anderson, the conclusion that Mullenix's reasons were insufficient to justify his actions simply does not “follow immediately” from the general proposition that force must be justified. 483 U. S., at 641.

Cases decided by the lower courts since Brosseau likewise have not clearly established that deadly force is inappropriate in response to conduct like Leija's. The Fifth Circuit here principally relied on its own decision in Lytle v. Bexar County , 560 F. 3d 404 (2009), denying qualified immunity to a police officer who had fred at a feeing car and killed one of its passengers. That holding turned on the court's assumption, for purposes of summary judgment, that the car was moving away from the officer and had already traveled

Cases that the Fifth Circuit ignored also suggest that Mul-lenix's assessment of the threat Leija posed was reasonable. In Long v. Slaton, 508 F. 3d 576 (2007), for example, the Eleventh Circuit held that a sheriff's deputy did not violate the Fourth Amendment by fatally shooting a mentally unstable individual who was attempting to fee in the deputy's car, even though at the time of the shooting the individual had not yet operated the cruiser dangerously. The court explained that “the law does not require officers in a tense and dangerous situation to wait until the moment a suspect uses a deadly weapon to act to stop the suspect” and concluded that the deputy had reason to believe Long was dangerous based on his unstable state of mind, theft of the cruiser, and failure to heed the deputy's warning to stop. Id., at 581– 582. The court also rejected the notion that the deputy should have first tried less lethal methods, such as spike strips. “[C]onsidering the unpredictability of Long's behavior and his feeing in a marked police cruiser,” the court held, “we think the police need not have taken that chance and hoped for the best.” Id., at 583 (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted). But see Smith v. Cupp, 430 F. 3d 766, 774–777 (CA6 2005) (denying qualified immunity to an

Other cases cited by the Fifth Circuit and respondents are simply too factually distinct to speak clearly to the speci-fc circumstances here. Several involve suspects who may have done little more than fee at relatively low speeds. See, e. g., Walker v. Davis, 649 F. 3d 502, 503 (CA6 2011); Kirby v. Duva, 530 F. 3d 475, 479–480 (CA6 2008); Adams v. Speers, 473 F. 3d 989, 991 (CA9 2007); Vaughan v. Cox, 343 F. 3d 1323, 1330–1331, and n. 7 (CA11 2003). These cases shed little light on whether the far greater danger of a speeding fugitive threatening to kill police officers waiting in his path could warrant deadly force. The court below noted that “no weapon was ever seen,” 773 F. 3d, at 723, but surely in these circumstances the police were justified in taking Leija at his word when he twice told the dispatcher he had a gun and was prepared to use it.

Finally, respondents argue that the danger Leija represented was less substantial than the threats that courts have found sufficient to justify deadly force. But the mere fact that courts have approved deadly force in more extreme circumstances says little, if anything, about whether such force was reasonable in the circumstances here. The fact is that when Mullenix fred, he reasonably understood Leija to be a fugitive feeing arrest, at speeds over 100 miles per hour, who was armed and possibly intoxicated, who had threatened to kill any officer he saw if the police did not abandon their pursuit, and who was racing toward Officer Ducheneaux's position. Even accepting that these circumstances fall somewhere between the two sets of cases respondents discuss, qualified immunity protects actions in the “ `hazy border between excessive and acceptable force.' ” Brosseau, 543 U. S., at 201 (quoting Saucier, 533 U. S., at 206; some internal quotation marks omitted).

It is so ordered.

Justice Scalia, concurring in the judgment.

I join the judgment of the Court, but would not describe what occurred here as the application of deadly force in effecting an arrest. Our prior cases have reserved that description to the directing of force sufficient to kill at the person of the desired arrestee. See, e. g., Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U. S. 765 (2014); Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U. S. 194 (2004) ( per curiam ); Tennessee v. Garner , 471 U. S. 1 (1985). It does not assist analysis to refer to all use of force that happens to kill the arrestee as the application of deadly force. The police might, for example, attempt to stop a feeing felon's car by felling a large tree across the road; if they drop the tree too late, so that it crushes the car and its occupant, I would not call that the application of deadly force. Though it was force sufficient to kill, it was not applied with the object of harming the body of the felon.

Thus, in Scott v. Harris, 550 U. S. 372 (2007), we declined to characterize officer Scott's use of his pursuing vehicle's bumper to push the feeing vehicle off the road as the application of deadly force. Whether or not it was that, we said, “all that matters is whether Scott's actions were reasonable.” Id., at 383. So also here. But it stacks the deck against the officer, it seems to me, to describe his action as the application of deadly force.

It was at least arguable in Scott that pushing a speeding vehicle off the road is targeting its occupant for injury or death. Here, however, it is conceded that Trooper Mullenix did not shoot to wound or kill the feeing Leija, nor even to drive Leija's car off the road, but only to cause the car to

Justice Sotomayor , dissenting.

Chadrin Mullenix fred six rounds in the dark at a car traveling 85 miles per hour. He did so without any training in that tactic, against the wait order of his superior officer, and less than a second before the car hit spike strips deployed to stop it. Mullenix's rogue conduct killed the driver, Israel Leija, Jr. Because it was clearly established under the Fourth Amendment that an officer in Mullenix's position should not have fred the shots, I respectfully dissent from the grant of summary reversal.

Resolving all factual disputes in favor of plaintiffs, as the Court must on a motion for summary judgment, Mullenix knew the following facts before he shot at Leija's engine block: Leija had led police officers on an 18-minute car chase, at speeds ranging from 85 to 110 miles per hour. 773 F. 3d 712, 716 (CA5 2014). Leija had twice called the police dispatcher threatening to shoot at officers if they did not cease the pursuit. Ibid. Police officers were deploying three sets of spike strips in order to stop Leija's fight. Ibid. The of-fcers were trained to stop a car using spike strips. This training included how to take a defensive position to minimize the risk of danger from the target car. Ibid. Mullenix knew that spike strips were being set up directly beneath the overpass where he was stationed. Id., at 723. There is no evidence below that any of the officers with whom Mul-

Mullenix had no training in shooting to disable a moving vehicle and had never seen the tactic done before. Id., at 716. He also lacked permission to take the shots: When Mullenix relayed his plan to his superior officer, Robert Byrd, Byrd responded “stand by” and “see if the spikes work first.” Id., at 716–717. Three minutes after arriving at the overpass, Mullenix fred six rounds at Leija's car. None hit the car's engine block; at least four struck Leija in the upper body, killing Leija. Id., at 717.

When confronting a claim of qualified immunity, a court asks two questions. First, the court considers whether the officer in fact violated a constitutional right. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U. S. 194, 201 (2001). Second, the court asks whether the contours of the right were “sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would [have understood] that what he is doing violates that right.” Id., at 202 (quoting Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U. S. 635, 640 (1987)). This Court has rejected the idea that “an official action is protected by quali-fed immunity unless the very action in question has previously been held unlawful.” Id., at 640. Instead, the crux of the qualified immunity test is whether officers have “fair notice” that they are acting unconstitutionally. Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U. S. 730, 739 (2002).

Respondents here allege that Mullenix violated the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable seizures by using deadly force to apprehend Leija. This Court's precedents clearly establish that the Fourth Amendment is violated unless the “ `governmental interests' ” in effectuating a particular kind of seizure outweigh the “ `nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests.' ” Scott v. Harris, 550 U. S. 372, 383 (2007) (quoting United

Balancing a particular governmental interest in the use of deadly force against the intrusion occasioned by the use of that force is inherently a fact-specific inquiry, not susceptible to bright lines. But it is clearly established that the government must have some interest in using deadly force over other kinds of force.

Here, then, the clearly established legal question—the question a reasonable officer would have asked—is whether, under all the circumstances as known to Mullenix, there was a governmental interest in shooting at the car rather than waiting for it to run over spike strips.

The Court does not point to any such interest here. It claims that Mullenix's goal was not merely to stop the car, but to stop the car “in a manner that avoided the risks” of relying on spike strips. Ante, at 16. But there is no evidence in the record that shooting at Leija's engine block would stop the car in such a manner.

The majority first suggests that Mullenix did not wait for the results of the spikes, as his superior advised, because of his concern for the officers manning the strips. But Leija was going to come upon those officers whether or not Mullen-ix's shooting tactic was successful: Mullenix took his shot when Leija was between 25 and 30 yards away from the spike strip, traveling at 85 miles per hour. Even if his shots hit Leija's engine block, the car would not have stopped instantly. Mullenix would have bought the officers he was trying to protect—officers who had been trained to take defensive positions—less than three-quarters of a second over waiting for the spike strips. And whatever threat Leija posed after his car was stopped existed whether the car was stopped by a shot to the engine block or by the spike strips.

Nor was there any evidence that shooting at the car was more reliable than the spike strips. The majority notes that

The majority cites Long v. Slaton, 508 F. 3d 576 (CA11 2007), for the proposition that Mullenix need not have “first tried less lethal methods, such as spike strips.” Ante, at 17. But in that case, there was a clear reason to prefer deadly force over the alternatives. In Long , an officer fred to stop a suspect from feeing in a stolen police cruiser. 508 F. 3d, at 583. When the officer fred, there were no alternative means of stopping the car in place. The Eleventh Circuit held that the governmental interest against waiting for a future deployment of spike strips that may never materialize justified the use of deadly force. Ibid.

In this case, by contrast, neither petitioner nor the majority can point to any possible marginal gain in shooting at the car over using the spike strips already in place. It is clearly established that there must be some governmental interest that necessitates deadly force, even if it is not always clearly established what level of governmental interest is sufficient.

Under the circumstances known to him at the time, Mul-lenix puts forth no plausible reason to choose shooting at Leija's engine block over waiting for the results of the spike strips. I would thus hold that Mullenix violated Leija's clearly established right to be free of intrusion absent some governmental interest.

The majority largely evades this key legal question by focusing primarily on the governmental interest in whether the car should be stopped rather than the dispositive question of how the car should be stopped. But even assuming

Thus framed, it is apparent that the majority's exhortation that the right at stake not be defined at “a high level of generality,” ante, at 16, is a red herring. The majority adduces various facts that the Fifth Circuit supposedly ignored in its qualified immunity analysis, including that Leija was “a reportedly intoxicated fugitive, set on avoiding capture through high-speed vehicular fight, who twice during his fight had threatened to shoot police officers, and who was moments away from encountering an officer at Cemetery Road.” Ante, at 13. But not one of those facts goes to the governmental interest in shooting over awaiting the spike strips. The majority also claims that established law does not make clear that “Mullenix's reasons were insufficient to justify” his choice of shooting over following his superior's orders to wait for the spikes. Ante , at 16. But Mullenix

Instead of dealing with the question whether Mullenix could constitutionally fire on Leija's car rather than waiting for the spike strips, the majority dwells on the imminence of the threat posed by Leija. The majority recharacterizes Mullenix's decision to shoot at Leija's engine block as a split-second, heat-of-the-moment choice, made when the suspect was “moments away.” Ante, at 13. Indeed, reading the majority opinion, one would scarcely believe that Mullenix arrived at the overpass several minutes before he took his shot, or that the rural road where the car chase occurred had few cars and no bystanders or businesses. 773 F. 3d, at 717, 720. The majority also glosses over the facts that Mullenix had time to ask Byrd for permission to fire upon Leija and that Byrd—Mullenix's superior officer—told Mullenix to “stand by.” Id., at 717. There was no reason to believe that Byrd did not have all the same information Mullenix did, including the knowledge that an officer was stationed beneath the overpass. Even after receiving Byrd's response, Mullenix spent minutes in shooting position discussing his next step with a fellow officer, minutes during which he received no information that would have made his plan more suitable or his superior's orders less so. Ibid.

An appropriate reading of the record on summary judgment would thus render Mullenix's choice even more unreasonable. And asking the appropriate legal question would leave the majority with no choice but to conclude that Mullenix ignored the longstanding and well-settled Fourth Amendment rule that there must be a governmental interest not just in seizing a suspect, but in the level of force used to effectuate that seizure.

* * *

When Mullenix confronted his superior officer after the shooting, his first words were, “How's that for proactive?”

For the reasons discussed, I would deny Mullenix's petition for a writ of certiorari. I thus respectfully dissent.