Debbie Latits v. Lowell Phillips, 878 F.3d 541

Background

After a traffic stop for a wrong-way turn, Latits fled in his car; three Ferndale officers (Jaklic, Wurm, Phillips) pursued for under four minutes on an almost-empty ten-lane highway at up to ~60 mph.
During the pursuit Officer Wurm twice struck Latits’s car; footage shows Latits did not ram Jaklic and appeared to be evading rather than attacking.
Phillips passed the lead officers, rammed Latits’s car off the road, exited his vehicle, and stood at the passenger side while Latits slowly maneuvered between police cars.
As Latits reversed away from the officers, Phillips fired multiple shots from the side/rear; Latits was hit three times and later died.
Dash-camera video contradicted Phillips’s testimony that Latits had aimed or drove at him; video showed no officers or civilians in Latits’s immediate path when Phillips shot.
District court granted summary judgment for Phillips; the Sixth Circuit panel held the shooting was objectively unreasonable (Fourth Amendment violation) but found the unlawfulness was not clearly established in June 2010, so Phillips received qualified immunity and the grant of summary judgment was affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Phillips’s use of deadly force violated the Fourth Amendment	Phillips shot a fleeing, nonviolent suspect who posed no imminent threat to officers or the public; force was excessive	Phillips reasonably feared imminent harm based on the chase, collisions, and radio broadcasts; split-second decision	The shooting was objectively unreasonable — Fourth Amendment violation affirmed on the merits
Whether facts should be viewed in light of dash-cam footage or plaintiff’s version	Video can be read favorably to plaintiff where ambiguous; conflicts resolved for nonmoving party	Phillips relied on his perception and testimony	Court viewed clear video facts as depicted and ambiguities in plaintiff’s favor when appropriate
Whether prior interactions (during chase) justified deadly force	Prior conduct showed evasion but not intent to injure; collisions appeared accidental and no civilians were at risk	Prior collisions and evasive driving created an imminent-danger context justifying force	Prior conduct did not show a threat sufficient to justify deadly force under objective standards
Whether qualified immunity bars relief despite constitutional violation	Sigley/Cupp and Garner provided clear notice that shooting a non-dangerous fleeing driver is unconstitutional	Mullenix/White required closely similar precedent; case-law was not sufficiently specific to place conduct beyond debate	Qualified immunity applies: right, though violated, was not clearly established in June 2010; summary judgment affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (fact video controls where unambiguous)
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (objectively reasonable force standard)
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (deadly force to prevent escape requires belief suspect poses serious threat)
Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305 (clearly established inquiry requires closely analogous precedent)
Plumhoff v. Rickard, 134 S. Ct. 2012 (deadly-force analysis in high-speed, dangerous chases)
Mullins v. Cyranek, 805 F.3d 760 (qualified-immunity and split-second decision context)
Cass v. City of Dayton, 770 F.3d 368 (framework for deadly force in vehicular flight)
Sigley v. City of Parma Heights, 437 F.3d 527 (denying immunity where officer shot a fleeing driver shown to be out of danger)
Smith v. Cupp, 430 F.3d 766 (similar holding: shooting a fleeing driver who was not an imminent threat unlawful)
Godawa v. Byrd, 798 F.3d 457 (video evidence and reasonableness analysis)
Kirby v. Duva, 530 F.3d 475 (fleeing driver who posed no threat: constitutional violation)