Farrell v. Montoya, 878 F.3d 933

On Oct. 28, 2013, Officer DeTavis stopped Oriana Farrell’s minivan for speeding; after a confrontation, Farrell twice pulled back onto the road and then departed while three officers approached.
Dash-cam video shows DeTavis breaking a rear passenger window as the minivan began to drive away; Defendant Officer Montoya arrived, fired three shots toward the van (aiming at a rear tire).
The van did not slow or stop when shots were fired; no bullets struck the van or its occupants.
The Farrells led officers on a high-speed pursuit and surrendered about four minutes later; they sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force.
Montoya asserted qualified immunity and moved for summary judgment; the district court denied summary judgment on the three-shot claim. The Tenth Circuit reversed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether firing at the fleeing van constituted a Fourth Amendment "seizure"	Farrells: shots plus earlier stops/commands meant they had submitted or were under an ongoing seizure	Montoya: Farrells were fleeing and did not submit; shots did not stop them, so no seizure	No seizure — shots were fired while the van fled, so no Fourth Amendment seizure
Whether a prior stop that the occupants later fled from creates a continuing/ongoing seizure	Farrells: initial stops created a seizure that continued despite flight	Montoya: law does not recognize a continuing seizure once the suspect flees and stops submitting	Rejected ongoing-seizure theory; Hodari D. treats seizure as a single act, not continuous during flight
Whether a momentary pause or subjective intent to surrender suffices as submission	Farrells: brief hesitation and subjective intent to find a station to surrender = submission	Montoya: temporary pause or private intent is insufficient; submission requires manifest compliance	Momentary pause or unmanifested subjective intent does not constitute submission/seizure
Whether Montoya is entitled to qualified immunity	Farrells: constitutional right to be free from excessive force was violated and clearly established	Montoya: no constitutional violation occurred (no seizure), so qualified immunity applies	Qualified immunity applies because no constitutional violation (no seizure) could be shown

Hodari D. v. United States, 499 U.S. 621 (1991) (a fleeing suspect who does not submit is not "seized")
Brooks v. Gaenzle, 614 F.3d 1213 (10th Cir. 2010) (shot that does not terminate flight does not effect a seizure)
United States v. Salazar, 609 F.3d 1059 (10th Cir. 2010) (seizure requires manifestation of submission to authority)
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (court may rely on video record that blatantly contradicts plaintiff’s version for summary-judgment purposes)
Gutierrez v. Cobos, 841 F.3d 895 (10th Cir. 2016) (qualified-immunity framework and plaintiff’s burden to show a constitutional violation and clearly established law)