ARLEAN K. BROWN v. BRIAN ELLIOTT
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Nov. 21, 2017,
Qualified Immunity – No clearly established law held that an officer leaning into the window of a car cannot use deadly force when the suspect puts the vehicle into motion

Facts:
In 2012, South Carolina officers received a tip from a confidential informant that Melvin Lawhorn would be purchasing and transporting a large quantity of cocaine in a truck along a given rural
road. They were told that Lawhorn usually carries a gun “when he goes and picks up dope.”
The SC officers observed the vehicle speeding and crossing the center line, so they initiated a traffic stop.
Deputy Elliott approached the truck from the passenger side, where Lawhorn, the suspect, was sitting with his window halfway down. Deputy Sellers approached the truck from the driver’s side. The driver, Darryl Herbert, kept his foot on top of the accelerator with the truck’s engine still running.
As Deputy Elliott arrived at the passenger door, Lawhorn jumped toward the driver’s seat, put his left foot on top of the driver’s foot on the gas pedal, and attempted to shift the truck into drive. The deputies shouted “freeze” and “don’t move.” Deputy Elliott leaned inside the passenger-side window to grab Lawhorn. However, Lawhorn successfully shifted the truck into drive, and the truck began moving forward.
Moments later, Deputy Elliott, who stated that he feared for his life and that of the other officers, reached for his gun and fired one shot into the truck, striking Lawhorn in the back and killing him.
Lawhorn’s estate sued, claiming that the officers violated Lawhorn’s 4th Amendment rights. They also argued that the police department violated their discovery obligations by claiming that “these vehicles were not equipped with dash cams at the time of the incident” when photographs were later discovered showing that the police car driven by one of the deputies had a video camera mounted inside the windshield.
The district court judge granted the deputies qualified immunity and dismissed the lawsuit. However, the judge ordered that the police department pay $11,550 in attorneys fees to compensate for the discovery violation.
Lawhorn appealed, arguing that officers should have known that deadly force was unreasonable under the circumstances.

Held:
The 4th Circuit held that the officers were protected by qualified immunity because they were acting in “good faith.”

Qualified Immunity – Police officers are protected from suit by “qualified immunity.” Qualified immunity protects officers from civil suit so long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Qualified Immunity – Constitutional rights are “clearly established” when the Supreme Court or other binding court decides an issue sufficiently clearly that “every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates the law.”

Qualified Immunity – Qualified immunity is designed to protect officers from “bad guesses in gray areas” and ensures that they are liable only for crossing “bright lines.”

Note: A line is considered “bright” by the courts if the issue was decided in an opinion. That line may not appear as “bright” to an officer who may not have time to read dozens of cases a month, which is why these legal updates are provided to you.

Qualified Immunity – For a Maryland police officer, law is “clearly established” when the Supreme Court, 4th Circuit, Court of Appeals of Maryland, or Court of Special Appeals of Maryland has decided an issue beyond question.

Qualified Immunity – While qualified immunity is usually decided by whether a previous court opinion has placed the issue “beyond debate,” extreme behavior that no reasonable officer would think was constitutional would also qualify.

Deadly Force against Motorists – It has been established that an officer cannot use deadly force against a motorist who has tried to run over the officer after the suspect’s car has passed the officer and poses no imminent risk (such as turning around or heading toward someone else).

From the Case: Existing law did not clearly establish that an officer leaning inside of a vehicle trying to pull away and thus endangering the officer’s life as well as his partner’s life cannot use deadly force.

Note: This is NOT the same as the court deciding that an officer can use deadly force under these circumstances. The court merely said that the issue has not been clearly decided, so the officers here are entitled to immunity against suit.

Discovery – Having to pay attorney’s fees was a reasonable penalty to impose on the department for its misleading response to the discovery request.