Cooper v. Rutherford, 3:10-cv-00695

Background

Officers responded to a Wachovia Bank robbery; suspect armed and fleeing toward Wendy's with hostages.
Cooper and her two children were in a car at Wendy's drive-thru; the suspect forced Cooper into the passenger seat.
Officer Black and other officers believed the suspect remained armed; York fired at the open car door; Black and others began firing.
Black fired 24 shots, far more than other officers, as the car moved and the suspect tried to exit; shots continued until the suspect was neutralized.
Cooper and her son were struck by bullets intended for the suspect, suffering serious injuries.
Cooper and her son sued under § 1983 for unlawful seizure and substantive due process; the district court denied qualified immunity to Black, which the Eleventh Circuit later reversed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there a Fourth Amendment seizure clearly established against Black?	Cooper argues Black’s shooting seized them by force.	Black asserts no clearly established seizure occurred under these facts.	No clearly established seizure established; qualified immunity applies.
Was Black’s use of deadly force against the suspect objectively reasonable under clearly established law?	Black’s excessive firing violated clearly established standards.	Deadly force against an armed suspect was appropriate; no clearly established rule against 24 shots.	Qualified immunity as to Fourth Amendment seizure.
Were the substantive due process claims clearly established as shocks to the conscience?	Black’s conduct was conscience-shocking regardless of seizure status.	No clearly established precedent showing conduct shocks the conscience under these facts.	Qualified immunity for substantive due process claims.
Should the case be remanded with directions to grant qualified immunity to Black and dismiss with prejudice?	District court failed to apply qualified immunity correctly.	Appropriate analysis showed no clear violation, thus immunity should be granted.	Case remanded with dismissal of Black with prejudice on qualified immunity grounds.

Key Cases Cited

Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (U.S. 2007) (seizure of vehicle occupants during stop; limits applicability to this case)
Vaughan v. Cox, 343 F.3d 1323 (11th Cir. 2003) (seizure when a bullet hits a passenger; distinguishable from bystander shots)
Marsh v. Butler Cnty., Ala., 268 F.3d 1014 (11th Cir. 2001) (en banc; discusses clearly established law in qualified immunity analysis)
Thomas v. Roberts, 323 F.3d 950 (11th Cir. 2003) (only Supreme Court, Eleventh Circuit, or state supreme court law can clearly establish law)
Lanier, 520 U.S. 259 (1997) (general rule applicability and clearly established standards)
Priester v. City of Riviera Beach, 208 F.3d 919 (11th Cir. 2000) (clarifies clearly established standard in the Eleventh Circuit)
Jean-Baptiste v. Gutierrez, 627 F.3d 816 (11th Cir. 2010) (continued use of force standards in pursuit cases)
Crenshaw v. Lister, 556 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2009) (situations involving use of force and reasonableness standards)
Coffin v. Brandau, 642 F.3d 999 (11th Cir. 2011) (fair notice in qualified immunity analysis)
White v. Lemacks, 183 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 1999) (due process and shock-the-conscience standard in pursuit cases)
Robinson v. Arrugueta, 415 F.3d 1252 (11th Cir. 2005) (reasonable use of force analysis in context of officers’ actions)
Collins v. City of Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115 (1992) (general due process and state action standards in police conduct cases)
Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (1998) (shock-to-conscience standard in high-speed pursuit cases)