Plumhoff v. Rickard

Background\n\nA driver named Donald Rickard led police on a long, high-speed chase that exceeded 100 miles per hour and passed more than two dozen cars. Officers tried a rolling roadblock, had collisions with Rickard’s car, and at one point Rickard reversed and drove around officers who were beside his vehicle. Three officers together fired 15 shots; Rickard and his passenger, Kelly Allen, later died. Rickard’s daughter sued the officers under a civil-rights law, claiming the shooting was excessive force. The District Court denied the officers’ immunity request and a court of appeals affirmed; the Supreme Court agreed to review the case and the appeals court’s jurisdiction was upheld.\n\nReasoning\n\nThe core question was whether shooting to stop this chase violated the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable force. Relying on an earlier decision about dangerous chases, the Court found Rickard’s conduct posed a grave threat to bystanders and officers. The Justices concluded that using deadly force to stop a continuing, high-speed, reckless flight was reasonable and that the officers were not required to stop firing until the threat ended. The Court also said the passenger’s presence did not give the driver greater Fourth Amendment protections. As an alternative ground, the Court held the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because existing precedent did not clearly prohibit their actions.\n\nReal world impact\n\nThe decision permits officers to use deadly force in similar high-speed chases where a fleeing driver presents an ongoing danger, and it reinforces legal protection for officers absent a clearly established rule forbidding their conduct. It reverses the lower courts and sends the case back for further steps consistent with this ruling.\n\nDissents or concurrances\n\nJustice Ginsburg joined the judgment and several parts of the opinion; Justice Breyer joined except for one subpart of the opinion.\n\n