Baker v. Coburn, 68 F.4th 240

Darion Baker and a companion stole an unoccupied Infiniti and were stopped by Stratford officers Coborn and McHugh after police confirmed the vehicle was stolen.
Officers approached with guns drawn; Coborn stood in front of the sedan and, according to video, began firing while the vehicle was stationary (disputed).
The sedan then moved past Coborn; officers continued firing. Baker was struck twice from behind and died; which officer fired the fatal shot is unclear.
Plaintiffs (Baker’s estate/minor child) sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force; officers asserted qualified immunity and moved for summary judgment.
The district court granted summary judgment: it found no clearly established law for Coborn’s initial shots and held the later shots were objectively reasonable.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed in part (initial shots) but reversed in part and remanded as to the second round of shots, finding genuine disputes of material fact about excessive force.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Qualified immunity for Coborn’s first round of shots (while car stationary)	Coborn’s initial shooting of a driver in a stationary car was unlawful and clearly established under Fifth Circuit precedent	Coborn had reason to fear Baker (reaching under dash, revving engine) and no controlling case put his conduct beyond debate	Court: Qualified immunity for Coborn on first shots — plaintiffs failed to identify controlling precedent that clearly established illegality
Excessive-force liability for second round of shots (after car moved)	Shots continued after the car safely passed; Baker was struck from behind, so force was unreasonable and excessive	Officers argue they reasonably feared imminent harm and could continue firing until vehicle was disabled; district court found shots reasonable	Court: Reversed district court on second round — genuine disputes of material fact exist about whether officers reasonably perceived an ongoing threat; remanded for further proceedings

Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (qualified immunity protects officials unless rights were clearly established)
Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (two-step qualified immunity framework)
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (objective-reasonableness test for excessive force)
Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765 (2014) (clearly established standard and deference in split-second decisions)
Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148 (2018) (importance of contextual, split-second judgments in excessive-force cases)
Edmond v. City of New Orleans, 20 F.3d 1170 (5th Cir. 1994) (factual dispute where officer stepped in front of vehicle and shots then occurred)
Lytle v. Bexar County, 560 F.3d 404 (5th Cir. 2009) (continuation of force can become unreasonable once threat subsides)
Hathaway v. Bazany, 507 F.3d 312 (5th Cir. 2007) (deadly force justified where car accelerated toward an officer and officer could not avoid it)
Waterman v. Batton, 393 F.3d 471 (4th Cir. 2005) (initial shots may be justified but subsequent shots after vehicle passed may not be)
Poole v. City of Shreveport, 13 F.4th 420 (5th Cir. 2021) (lesser threat when suspect is turning or moving away)
Flores v. City of Palacios, 381 F.3d 391 (5th Cir. 2004) (material factual disputes can preclude summary judgment on shooting into vehicle)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary-judgment standard on genuine disputes of material fact)