Browder Ex Rel. Estate of Browder v. City of Albuquerque
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9183
| 10th Cir. | 2015Background
- Sergeant Adam Casaus drove his marked police cruiser off-duty with emergency lights activated, speeding ~66 mph across city surface streets through 11 intersections and ran a red light. The vehicle crash killed Ashley Browder and severely injured her sister Lindsay.
- Casaus was criminally charged under state law for reckless vehicular homicide; the Browders brought a § 1983 suit alleging substantive due process violations under the Fourteenth Amendment.
- The complaint alleges Casaus was on no official business, did not notify dispatch as required, and an eyewitness said he was not pursuing another vehicle.
- At the motion-to-dismiss stage the district court denied qualified immunity; Casaus appealed arguing official-purpose defense and insufficient mens rea to state a substantive due process claim.
- The Tenth Circuit (Gorsuch) assumed action was under color of state law, held the complaint plausibly alleged conscience-shocking executive conduct (reckless indifference) and that the law was clearly established, affirming denial of qualified immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Casaus’s off-duty use of a marked cruiser with lights constitutes executive action giving rise to a § 1983 claim | Browders: Casaus acted under color of state law and his conduct allegedly deprived plaintiffs of life without due process | Casaus: either not acting under color of law or, alternatively, conducting official duties (pursuing dangerous driver) | Court assumed action was under color of state law for purposes of decision and proceeded to analyze substantive due process claim |
| Whether Casaus’s driving amounted to a substantive due process violation ("arbitrary or conscience-shocking") | Browders: high-speed, nonemergency use of police vehicle with lights, running red light, and causing death shows reckless indifference to life | Casaus: conduct was at most negligent; if pursuing a suspect, exigency negates conscience-shocking standard | Court: taking complaint facts as true, conduct could show reckless indifference sufficient under Lewis (not mere negligence); specific intent not required where officer pursued no emergency |
| Whether activating emergency lights (without siren) or short time in intersection negates culpable mens rea | Browders: lights do not automatically immunize when used for personal purposes; long prior high-speed driving indicates opportunity for reflection | Casaus: lights indicate public-safety intent; only ~2.5 seconds at intersection so no time to form reckless indifference | Court: disputed factual inferences must be resolved by jury; lights and short time do not defeat claim on pleadings |
| Whether Casaus is entitled to qualified immunity because the right was not clearly established | Browders: precedent and constitutional principles make obvious that off-duty, high-speed misuse of police vehicle causing death violates due process | Casaus: no clear precedent applying Lewis to off-duty nonemergency speeding causing death | Court: conduct was sufficiently egregious and prior decisions (Lewis, Williams, Green) made the violation clearly established — qualified immunity denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (broad reading of "under color of" state law)
- County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (executive-action standard: "arbitrary or conscience-shocking")
- Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (test for identifying fundamental rights; caution in substantive due process)
- Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (federal relief may be unnecessary where state remedies suffice)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (qualified immunity: clearly established law standard)
- Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266 (limits on using Fourteenth Amendment as generalized tort remedy)
- Williams v. City & County of Denver, 99 F.3d 1009 (Tenth Circuit warning that nonemergency high-speed officer driving can implicate Fourteenth Amendment)
- Green v. Post, 574 F.3d 1294 (Tenth Circuit: conscience-shocking deliberate indifference in traffic-driving context)