Carmita Lewis v. Charter Township of Flint
660 F. App'x 339
| 6th Cir. | 2016Background
- Officer Stokes stopped a vehicle for speeding; Dominique Lewis was a rear-seat passenger who moved into the driver’s seat during the stop.
- Officer Needham arrived as backup; after Lewis started the car and accelerated to flee, Needham ran across in front of the vehicle, appeared to lower his gun while moving out of the car’s path, and then fired two shots into the driver’s-side window as the car passed, killing Lewis.
- Dash-cam video is the primary evidentiary record before discovery; parties dispute what the video conclusively shows about whether Needham was in the car’s path or whether Lewis targeted him.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment and qualified immunity before discovery, arguing the video established Needham’s entitlement to immunity; the district court deferred ruling and allowed 60 days of discovery, prompting Needham’s interlocutory appeal.
- The Sixth Circuit reviews qualified-immunity denials de novo but must view facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff where factual disputes remain; the court has jurisdiction to decide the legal question presented.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Needham’s use of deadly force violated the Fourth Amendment | Shooting into driver’s window was excessive where Lewis posed no clear imminent threat; video permits inference that Lewis was fleeing and not targeting Needham | Needham believed Lewis posed imminent danger when vehicle accelerated toward him; split-second decision justified deadly force | Denied qualified immunity at this stage: video does not conclusively show no constitutional violation; factual disputes remain for a jury |
| Whether the right was "clearly established" at the time | Controlling precedent (Garner/Graham and circuit decisions like Cupp) put officers on notice deadly force cannot be used against fleeing suspects who present no imminent danger | Mullenix and contested authority show law was not beyond debate; facts fall in a hazy border so immunity applies | Right clearly established enough that qualified immunity cannot be resolved for Needham based on the video alone; reasonable officers could not disagree if no imminent danger existed |
| Whether the dash-cam video alone supports summary judgment for defendant | Video does not conclusively show Needham was in imminent danger or that Lewis targeted him; reasonable juror could find either way | Video demonstrates Lewis swerved toward Needham and presented imminent danger; no factual dispute for jury | Video alone insufficient to grant summary judgment; factual issues preclude resolving immunity now |
| Whether remaining state-law claims should be dismissed as intertwined with immunity | Estate’s claims survive because qualified immunity is unresolved | Needham argued intertwined federal-qualified-immunity resolution should dispose of other claims | Court rejected dismissal of remaining claims on that basis since immunity not established |
Key Cases Cited
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) (use of deadly force to prevent escape is unconstitutional unless suspect poses an imminent threat)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (excessive-force claims judged by Fourth Amendment objective reasonableness)
- Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194 (2004) (deadly force may be reasonable when officer has probable cause to believe suspect poses serious physical harm)
- Smith v. Cupp, 430 F.3d 766 (6th Cir. 2005) (disputed facts about officer’s position and timing can preclude qualified immunity when video evidence is ambiguous)
- Williams v. City of Grosse Pointe Park, 496 F.3d 482 (6th Cir. 2007) (video showed driver posed an imminent and obvious danger; officer’s use of force was objectively reasonable)
- Godawa v. Byrd, 798 F.3d 457 (6th Cir. 2015) (video may not resolve factual disputes; fleeing in vehicle alone does not justify deadly force absent imminent danger)
- Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305 (2015) (per curiam) (qualified immunity where precedent left reasonable officers without clear, controlling guidance on similar facts)