Message
×
loading..

Sybil Hernandez v. Brett Jarman ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                     United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 02-3519
    ___________
    Sybil Hernandez, Mother and             *
    Administrator of the Estate of          *
    Albert James Six Feathers,              *
    *
    Plaintiff - Appellee,             *
    *
    v.                                *
    *
    Brett Jarman, Individually,             *   Appeals from the United States
    *   District Court for the
    Defendant - Appellant,            *   District of South Dakota.
    *
    State of South Dakota; Edgemont         *
    Police Department; Mary Kellogg,        *
    Individually and in her Official        *
    Capacity as a City Council              *
    Commissioner; Roger Le Vasseur,         *
    Individually and in his Official        *
    Capacity as a City Council              *
    Commissioner; William Clark,            *
    Individually and in his Official        *
    Capacity as a City Council              *
    Commissioner; Alex Asbridge,            *
    Individually and in his Official        *
    Capacity as a City Council              *
    Commissoner; L. George West,            *
    Individually and in his Official        *
    Capacity as a City Council              *
    Commissioner; Ted W. Hinesley,          *
    Individually and in his Official        *
    Capacity as Edgemont City Attorney;     *
    City of Edgemont; Jeffrey D. Tarrell,    *
    Individually; Martha Jarman,             *
    Individually and in her Official         *
    Capacity as a Deputy with the Fall       *
    River County Sheriff's Department;       *
    Fall River County Sheriff's              *
    Department; Fall River County,           *
    South Dakota; Robert Fazendin,           *
    Individually and in his Official         *
    Capacity as a Law Enforcement            *
    Officer with the Newcastle Police        *
    Department; Newcastle Police             *
    Department; City of Newcastle,           *
    Wyoming; John Does 1 through 5,          *
    *
    Defendants.                 *
    ___________
    No. 02-3520
    ___________
    Sybil Hernandez, Mother and              *
    Administrator of the Estate of           *
    Albert James Six Feathers,               *
    *
    Plaintiff - Appellee,       *
    *
    v.                                 *
    *
    Brett Jarman, Individually; State of     *
    South Dakota; Edgemont Police            *
    Department; Mary Kellogg,                *
    Individually and in her Official         *
    Capacity as a City Council               *
    Commissoner; Roger Le Vasseur,           *
    Individually and in his Official         *
    -2-
    Capacity as a City Council             *
    Commissioner; William Clark,           *
    Individually and in his Official       *
    Capacity as a City Council             *
    Commissioner; Alex Asbridge,           *
    Individually and in his Official       *
    Capacity as a City Council             *
    Commissioner; L. George West,          *
    Individually and in his Official       *
    Capacity as a City Council             *
    Commissioner; Ted W. Hinesley,         *
    Individually and in his Official       *
    Capacity as Edgemont City Attorney;    *
    City of Edgemont,                      *
    *
    Defendants,                     *
    *
    Jeffrey D. Tarrell, Individually,      *
    *
    Defendant - Appellant,          *
    *
    Martha Jarman, Individually and in     *
    her Official Capacity as a Deputy with *
    the Fall River County Sheriff's        *
    Department; Fall River County          *
    Sheriff's Department; Fall River       *
    County, South Dakota; Robert           *
    Fazendin, Individually and in his      *
    Official Capacity as a Law             *
    Enforcement Officer with the           *
    Newcastle Police Department;           *
    Newcastle Police Department; City of *
    Newcastle, Wyoming; John Does          *
    1 through 5,                           *
    *
    Defendants.                     *
    -3-
    ___________
    Submitted: May 15, 2003
    Filed: August 21, 2003
    ___________
    Before BOWMAN and BYE, Circuit Judges, and ERICKSEN,1 District Judge.
    ___________
    BOWMAN, Circuit Judge.
    Jeffrey D. Tarrell, Sheriff of Fall River County, South Dakota, and Brett
    Jarman, Chief of Police of Edgemont, South Dakota (collectively "the officers"),
    appeal the District Court's denial of their motions for summary judgment on the basis
    of qualified immunity2 in a 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     (2000) suit for damages filed against
    them by Sybil Hernandez, the administrator of the estate of her son, Albert James Six
    Feathers. We reverse.
    I.
    This suit arose out of a high-speed police chase through parts of Wyoming and
    South Dakota that ended with the fatal shooting of Six Feathers by Brett Jarman. At
    around 3:00 a.m. on December 10, 1999, in New Castle, Wyoming, Six Feathers was
    observed driving erratically by Robert Fazendin, a New Castle police officer.
    Because Fazendin suspected Six Feathers was intoxicated, he attempted to stop Six
    1
    The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District
    of Minnesota, sitting by designation.
    2
    This interlocutory appeal is properly before us because Tarrell and Jarman are
    appealing the denial of summary judgment motions in which each asserted a qualified
    immunity defense. See McCaslin v. Wilkins, 
    183 F.3d 775
    , 778 (8th Cir. 1999).
    -4-
    Feathers by turning on his overhead lights. In response, Six Feathers sped up and fled
    south on Highway 85. Fazendin pursued Six Feathers for forty-five miles at speeds
    reaching one hundred miles per hour. When it became apparent that Six Feathers was
    heading to South Dakota, Fazendin told his dispatcher to contact South Dakota law
    enforcement officials to notify them of the pursuit, and to request that a set of road
    spikes be deployed to stop Six Feathers's vehicle. This message was relayed to
    Tarrell, Brett Jarman, and Martha Jarman, a deputy with the Fall River County
    Sheriff's Department. Brett Jarman and Martha Jarman, each in his and her respective
    patrol car, joined the pursuit near Edgemont. Shortly thereafter, Tarrell joined the
    chase. A South Dakota Highway Patrol airplane flown by Glen Miller monitored the
    pursuit.
    Around Edgemont, Six Feathers successfully evaded several roadblocks,
    including a rolling roadblock in which the officers attempted to box Six Feathers's car
    in on three sides. During this attempted stop of Six Feathers, Brett Jarman's car
    apparently became disabled, and he ended up riding with Tarrell. At approximately
    this same time, Fazendin, who was now out of his jurisdiction, stopped his pursuit,
    but he continued to follow the chase until he could determine his location. Martha
    Jarman also fell behind when her car spun out after it collided with Six Feathers's
    vehicle. Tarrell and Brett Jarman continued the high-speed chase with Martha Jarman
    and Fazendin following some distance behind.
    Near Ardmore, South Dakota, Six Feathers turned his car at a section line road
    and then off the road and down a hill into a pasture. Due to the rough nature of the
    terrain and warnings from Miller, Tarrell slowed down. Six Feathers continued ahead
    for a short distance but then turned his vehicle around and came back on the same
    path in the opposite direction. After seeing Six Feathers turn his car around, Brett
    Jarman told Tarrell to stop his car. As Tarrell slowed down, Brett Jarman grabbed
    Tarrell's shotgun and jumped out of the patrol car. Within seconds after Brett
    Jarman's exit, Six Feathers ran head-on into Tarrell's vehicle. Brett Jarman fired four
    -5-
    shots at Six Feathers, but, as the District Court noted, it is unclear whether the shots
    were fired "before, during, or after the collision." Mem. Op. and Order at 5 (July 31,
    2002). Six Feathers died at the scene.
    The District Court denied the summary judgment motions of Brett Jarman and
    Tarrell.3 Subsequently, based on the motions of Tarrell and Brett Jarman, the District
    Court issued an order of clarification because it believed its prior order did not
    adequately discuss the reasons for denying Tarrell and Jarman qualified immunity.
    See Mem. of Clarification at 2 (Oct. 7, 2002).
    II.
    We review a district court's denial of summary judgment on the basis of
    qualified immunity de novo. McCaslin v. Wilkins, 
    183 F.3d 775
    , 778 (8th Cir. 1999).
    In so doing, we consider whether, viewed in the light most favorable to the
    nonmoving party, the facts alleged show a violation of a clearly established
    constitutional right. Seiner v. Drenon, 
    304 F.3d 810
    , 812 (8th Cir. 2002).
    In this case, if Hernandez's allegations fail to establish a violation of a clearly
    established constitutional right, Jarman and Tarrell will be entitled to qualified
    immunity for their actions. See Saucier v. Katz, 
    533 U.S. 194
    , 201 (2001) (holding
    that in excessive force cases, the threshold question for the court is whether the
    officer's conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right). We analyze
    Hernandez's claims that the officers used excessive force during their seizure of Six
    Feathers "under the Fourth Amendment and its 'objective reasonableness' standard."
    Seiner, 
    304 F.3d at 812
    ; Cole v. Bone, 
    993 F.2d 1328
    , 1332–33 (8th Cir. 1993)
    3
    The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Martha Jarman,
    Fazendin, and several other defendants not involved in this appeal. Mem. Op. and
    Order at 15–16.
    -6-
    (holding a Fourth Amendment seizure occurs when an officer fatally shoots a fleeing
    suspect). In determining whether this use of force in seizing Six Feathers was
    objectively reasonable, we consider the facts and circumstances of the case, including
    the crime's severity, whether Six Feathers posed an immediate threat to the safety of
    the officers or others, and whether he actively resisted arrest or fled. See Seiner, 
    304 F.3d at 812
    . Moreover, in making this determination, we consider only whether the
    seizure itself, not preseizure conduct, was unreasonable. 
    Id.
    An officer may use deadly force if "the officer has probable cause to believe
    that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the
    officer or others." 
    Id.
     (quoting Tennessee v. Garner, 
    471 U.S. 1
    , 3 (1985)); see also
    Sinclair v. City of Des Moines, Iowa, 
    268 F.3d 594
    , 596 (8th Cir. 2001). "The
    'reasonableness' of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of
    a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight."
    Graham, 490 U.S. at 396. This "'reasonableness' inquiry" concerns only whether "the
    officers' actions are 'objectively reasonable' in light of the facts and circumstances
    confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation. An
    officer's evil intentions will not make a Fourth Amendment violation out of an
    objectively reasonable use of force . . . ." Id. at 397 (internal citation omitted).
    As we have repeatedly held, in opposing a motion for summary judgment, a
    nonmoving party may not rely on mere denials or allegations in its pleadings, but
    must designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. See, e.g.,
    Brandt v. Davis, 
    191 F.3d 887
    , 891 (8th Cir. 1999) (affirming grant of summary
    judgment in favor of defendants in an excessive force case because plaintiff failed to
    submit any evidence contradicting defendants' version of the incident). While we are
    mindful that this case is somewhat unusual in that Tarrell and Jarman are the only
    surviving witnesses, that does not relieve Hernandez of her burden of showing that
    material facts are in dispute.
    -7-
    We turn first to consider whether the District Court erred in denying Tarrell's
    motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. The District Court
    denied Tarrell's motion because it believed the record indicated that "Tarrell was
    potentially a direct participant in the seizure of Six Feathers" and that "material
    questions of fact exist relating to Tarrell's knowledge of Jarman's intentions" and
    whether Tarrell authorized the use of deadly force by Jarman. Mem. of Clarification
    at 4. In particular, the District Court found that Tarrell may have been involved in the
    seizure of Six Feathers because of Six Feathers's collision with Tarrell's vehicle and
    because Jarman shot Six Feathers with Tarrell's shotgun.
    We reject the District Court's conclusion that the collision between Six
    Feathers's car and Tarrell's car could establish Tarrell's participation in the seizure of
    Six Feathers. The Supreme Court has held that a Fourth Amendment seizure does not
    occur where a "'pursuing police car sought to stop the suspect only by the show of
    authority represented by flashing lights and continuing pursuit,' but accidentally
    stopped the suspect by crashing into him." County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 
    523 U.S. 833
    , 844 (1998) (quoting Brower v. County of Inyo, 
    489 U.S. 593
    , 597 (1989)). In
    this case, unlike in Lewis, Six Feathers intentionally caused the collision by driving
    his car head-on into Tarrell's car. Hernandez does not offer any evidence to dispute
    this claim. Instead, she speculates about what might have caused this collision,
    including the possibility that Six Feathers felt trapped. See Br. of Appellee at 17. For
    purposes of whether a Fourth Amendment seizure occurred during this collision, it
    is irrelevant what Six Feathers might have been thinking (although we find nothing
    remarkable about the proposition that the Six Feathers may have felt trapped; after
    all, Tarrell and Jarman were attempting to end this highly dangerous and lengthy
    pursuit). As we have held, a Fourth Amendment seizure occurs as a result of a car
    collision only where the police officer intended the collision to be the result. Roach
    v. City of Fredericktown, Mo., 
    882 F.2d 294
    , 296 (8th Cir. 1989). Tarrell's
    undisputed testimony was that he attempted to avoid the collision by backing up. See
    Dep. of Jeffrey Tarrell at 147. In addition, an aerial photograph of the scene shows
    -8-
    that Six Feathers actually drove a short distance away after the collision. Based on
    these facts, we find, as a matter of law, that no seizure occurred from Six Feathers's
    collision with Tarrell's vehicle and therefore there is no basis for denying Tarrell
    qualified immunity on this ground.
    We also conclude that Tarrell did not deprive Six Feathers of any clearly
    established constitutional right when Jarman fatally shot Six Feathers with Tarrell's
    shotgun. Again, the undisputed testimony of Tarrell was that he did not see Jarman
    handle the shotgun during the pursuit and that Tarrell had no idea what Jarman was
    going to do when he told Tarrell to stop his car. Id. at 97, 121. The shooting of Six
    Feathers by Jarman happened as Six Feathers was crashing head-on into Tarrell's car
    as Tarrell attempted to avoid the collision. Id. at 148. There is simply no evidence
    in the record to support the District Court's finding that questions of fact exist as to
    whether Tarrell knew of or authorized Jarman's use of deadly force to seize Six
    Feathers.
    With respect to Brett Jarman, the District Court denied his motion for summary
    judgment because it found that "[w]hile the use of deadly force may have been
    justified, genuine questions of material fact concerning what actually took place in
    the pasture area remain." Mem. of Clarification at 5. Specifically, the District Court
    thought that the disputed facts included Six Feathers's ability to operate his car after
    the collision with Tarrell's vehicle, Six Feathers's intentions after the collision, and
    the sequence of the four shots fired by Jarman. Id.
    As we have stated, Jarman's use of deadly force is permissible if he had
    probable cause to believe that Six Feathers posed a significant threat of death or
    serious physical injury to Jarman, Tarrell, or others. See Seiner, 
    304 F.3d at 812
    . We
    view the reasonableness of Jarman's use of deadly force from the perspective of a
    reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. See
    Graham, 490 U.S. at 396.
    -9-
    The undisputed facts in this case demonstrate that Six Feathers continually
    eluded the officers and took them on a lengthy and highly dangerous chase. Near the
    end of the pursuit, Six Feathers intentionally drove his car directly into Tarrell's
    vehicle. Jarman testified that it was his belief that Six Feathers was an "immediate
    threat." Dep. of Brett Jarman at 178. Jarman further testified that, after the collision,
    he believed Six Feathers, as he was backing up and turning his car in Jarman's
    direction, intended to run him over. Id. at 179. Based on these undisputed facts, we
    hold that Jarman's use of deadly force was objectively reasonable under the
    circumstances as Jarman knew them to be at that time. See Cole, 993 F.3d at 1333
    (holding officer's decision to use deadly force to stop truck driver was not objectively
    unreasonable because officer believed driver posed an imminent threat of serious
    physical harm to the officers in the pursuit as well as other innocent motorists).
    In denying Jarman's motion, the District Court stated that there was a dispute
    about whether Six Feathers was able to continue to operate the vehicle after the
    collision with Tarrell's car. As noted, however, the record demonstrates that Six
    Feathers continued to drive his car after the collision. In addition, the District Court
    denied summary judgment for Jarman because it found that factual disputes existed
    as to Six Feathers's "intentions" after the collision. The District Court erred in
    denying Jarman's motion for qualified immunity on this ground. The reasonableness
    of Jarman's use of deadly force is judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer
    on the scene, see Graham, 490 U.S. at 397, and not from the unknowable intentions
    of the victim. In short, Six Feathers's actual intent is irrelevant. Instead, our inquiry
    concerns what a reasonable officer could conclude Six Feathers's intentions were at
    that moment. Jarman testified that he believed Six Feathers intended to run him over
    with his car. Given that Jarman had just witnessed Six Feathers ram Tarrell's car with
    his vehicle, we conclude it was reasonable for Jarman to believe that the use of deadly
    force was necessary to protect Tarrell and himself from harm. See Saucier, 533 U.S.
    at 205 (noting that "[i]f an officer reasonably, but mistakenly, believed that a suspect
    -10-
    was likely to fight back, for instance, the officer would be justified in using more
    force than in fact was needed").
    Finally, the District Court denied Jarman's motion because it found there was
    an alleged dispute about the sequence of shots fired. According to Jarman, he fired
    two shots at Six Feathers as Six Feathers drove into Tarrell's vehicle and another two
    shots as Six Feathers backed up and started to drive towards him. See Dep. of Brett
    Jarman at 178–180. Even if we were to accept that there are discrepancies in the
    accounts of Jarman, Tarrell, and the version of the shooting Jarman gave to Fazendin
    when he arrived on the scene, we do not think that is relevant to the inquiry at hand,
    which is whether Jarman's use of deadly force was objectively reasonable under the
    circumstances as Jarman perceived them. Even if we assumed, as Hernandez implies,
    that Jarman fired all four shots after Six Feathers collided with Tarrell's vehicle, see
    Br. of Appellee at 25, we would still conclude that Jarman's conduct was objectively
    reasonable because he had probable cause to believe Six Feathers posed an imminent
    threat of serious physical harm to himself and to others as evidenced by Six Feathers
    driving head-on into Tarrell's vehicle. See Garner, 
    471 U.S. at 11
     (noting that "if the
    suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that
    he has committed a crime involving the infliction of serious physical harm, deadly
    force may be used if necessary to prevent escape"). Accordingly, Jarman is entitled
    to qualified immunity for his conduct because the facts as alleged by Hernandez fail
    to state a violation of Six Feathers's clearly established constitutional rights.
    III.
    For the reasons stated, we reverse the judgment of the District Court denying
    qualified immunity to Tarrell and to Brett Jarman.
    -11-
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    -12-