Brosseau v. Haugen

Background

Officer Rochelle Brosseau, a local police officer, shot Kenneth Haugen in the back as he climbed into and began to drive away in his Jeep after a neighborhood fight. Haugen survived, later pleaded guilty to a felony eluding charge, and sued under 42 U.S.C. §1983 claiming excessive force. The District Court granted Brosseau summary judgment based on qualified immunity; the Ninth Circuit reversed, and the Supreme Court agreed to review the qualified immunity question.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether the law at the time clearly told a reasonable officer that shooting Haugen would be unlawful. It said the broad rules from earlier decisions were not particular enough to give fair warning in this fact-specific situation. Citing similar but not identical cases, the Court concluded prior law did not clearly establish that Brosseau’s conduct violated the Fourth Amendment, so she was entitled to qualified immunity. The Court declined to decide the underlying constitutional question.

Real world impact

The decision makes it harder for plaintiffs to recover damages from officers when prior case law does not clearly bar the officer’s specific conduct. The case is sent back to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. This ruling does not finally resolve whether the shooting was constitutional and could change with further factual development or later rulings.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Breyer (joined by Justices Scalia and Ginsburg) concurred, urging reconsideration of the rule that courts must decide constitutional questions first. Justice Stevens dissented, saying the shooting violated the Fourth Amendment and that a jury should decide the qualified immunity issue.