Eleanor Keller v. Attala County, 952 F.3d 216

On Jan. 26, 2015, Gerald Simpson, a mentally infirm man, was stopped by Kosciusko police while walking in the road; officers found him incoherent and pointing west.
Officer Hawthorne persuaded Simpson to sit in his patrol car; Deputy Darrin Fleming (Attala County) then placed Simpson in the back of Fleming’s patrol vehicle and drove several miles west toward the Attala County line.
Fleming pulled over at the county line, opened the rear door, Simpson exited and continued walking toward Durant (outside Attala County); later that night Simpson was struck and killed by a motorist.
Simpson’s estate sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging (1) an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment and (2) a substantive-due-process violation under the Fourteenth Amendment (special-relationship / state-created-danger theories).
The district court denied Fleming qualified immunity as to Attala County/Fleming; Fleming appealed interlocutorily. The Fifth Circuit (majority) held a seizure occurred but reversed, granting Fleming qualified immunity on both Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims; a dissent would have denied immunity on the Fourth Amendment claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Simpson was "seized" under the Fourth Amendment	Simpson was restrained when placed in patrol cars and not free to leave	Fleming did not dispute seizure and urged objective-reasonableness analysis	Court: seizure occurred (officers’ show of authority and restraint)
Whether the seizure was unreasonable and not protected by qualified immunity (clearly established law)	Seizure was unreasonable (no probable cause; alleged custom of ousting vagrants) and clearly established law put Fleming on notice	Fleming argued community-caretaker/consent justifications and that no clearly established precedent put him on notice	Court: seizure likely unreasonable but Plaintiffs failed to identify controlling precedent showing the unlawfulness was clearly established; Fleming entitled to qualified immunity
Whether Fleming violated a clearly established Fourteenth Amendment substantive-due-process right (special-relationship or state-created-danger)	By taking custody and abandoning Simpson, Fleming created a special relationship / state-created-danger	Fleming argued DeShaney bars affirmative-duty liability and Fifth Circuit has not clearly adopted a state-created-danger exception	Court: no clearly established Fourteenth Amendment right under these facts; Fleming entitled to qualified immunity

Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (established the two-step qualified-immunity framework)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (courts may address either prong of qualified immunity first)
Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S. Ct. 1861 (on interlocutory review, courts must accept plaintiff’s version of disputed facts)
DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (state generally has no affirmative duty to protect individuals from private violence)
Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156 (invalidated vague vagrancy laws; limits on arbitrary police discretion)
Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (general constitutional principles can sometimes put officers on notice absent on-point precedent)
Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567 (seizure occurs when a reasonable person would not feel free to leave)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (officer’s accosting and restraint can constitute a seizure)