OFFICER VANCE PLUMHOFF, ET AL . v. WHITNE RICKARD
Supreme Court of the United States, Alito, Filed May 27, 2014,
Use of Force- Shooting the driver of a vehicle temporarily pinned against a police car and attempting to drive off was not a violation of the 4th Amendment where the driver had proven the danger of his flight by having already led police on a lengthy, high-speed chase that endangered the public

“The Constitution assuredly does not impose [an] invitation to impunity-earned-by-recklessness.” (Quoting Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007), in which the USSC declined to adopt a rule requiring police to allow fleeing suspects to get away whenever suspects drive so recklessly that they put other people’s lives in danger.)

Rickard and his passenger were stopped by police for an equipment violation. When stopped, police noticed a head-shaped indentation in the windshield of his car and signs that Rickard had been drinking. Rickard was asked to exit the vehicle and drove off. Police followed Rickard at speeds over 100 mph as Rickard passed over two-dozen vehicles during the course of a 5 minute pursuit. Rickard eventually made contact with a police cruiser and became temporarily stuck. Officers approached and Rickard attempted to pull away, striking another police cruiser. Rickard continued to attempt to flee, at which point officers fired a total of 15 rounds at Rickard. Rickard managed to get away from the vehicles and crashed into a building, the sum of the rounds fired and the car crash killing himself and his passenger.

Notes from the USSC on Use of Force:

– A claim that law-enforcement officers used excessive force to effect a seizure is governed by the Fourth Amendment’s “reasonableness” standard.
– Police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments—in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving—about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.
– A “police officer’s attempt to terminate a dangerous high-speed car chase that threatens the lives of innocent bystanders does not violate the Fourth Amendment, even when it places the fleeing motorist at risk of serious injury or death”
– Rickard’s flight posed a grave public safety risk, and here, as in Scott , the police acted reasonably in using deadly force to end that risk.
– “[I]f police officers are justified in firing at a suspect in order to end a severe threat to public safety, the officers need not stop shooting until the threat has ended.”
– The driver of a vehicle can not assert a 4th amendment claim on behalf of the passenger, particularly where it is disregard for the passenger’s safety that brought about the danger.