James Thompson v. Norman Howard
679 F. App'x 177
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Officer Howard stopped a car driven by Sigwalt; James Thompson was a passenger. Howard arrested Sigwalt and sought to restrain Thompson, using a taser and baton during a confrontation.
- Thompson entered the driver’s seat, started the car, and drove away while Howard’s arm was partially inside; Thompson collided with Officer Mehalik’s occupied police cruiser as Mehalik was exiting.
- Thompson fled at high speed through a residential area, driving over sidewalks and lawns with the gas pedal “all the way to the floor” and keeping his head down.
- Howard fired five shots at Thompson as he fled; Mehalik fired one shot. None of the six rounds directly struck Thompson.
- Thompson was later criminally convicted of aggravated assault and other charges; he sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging excessive force (limited on appeal to the shooting).
- The District Court granted summary judgment for Howard; the Third Circuit affirmed based on qualified immunity, holding existing precedent did not place the unreasonableness of the shooting beyond debate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether shooting at Thompson during his high-speed vehicular flight violated the Fourth Amendment | Thompson: firing was excessive force because he was fleeing and not posing an immediate deadly threat | Howard: Thompson’s collision with a manned police cruiser and reckless high-speed flight posed an immediate threat to officers and bystanders, justifying deadly force | Court: Not clearly established that shooting was unconstitutional; qualified immunity applies |
| Whether precedent placed the unconstitutionality of the shooting "beyond debate" | Thompson: Supreme Court/Third Circuit precedent should have made unlawfulness clear | Howard: Supreme Court decisions on car chases and flight (Brosseau, Mullenix, Scott, Plumhoff) show the legal standard was uncertain | Court: Precedent did not clearly govern facts; reasonable officers could have believed deadly force necessary |
| Relevance of officer’s earlier alleged misconduct (racial epithets, baton, taser) to qualified immunity for the shooting | Thompson: prior provocation and misconduct could defeat immunity for the shooting | Howard: claim on appeal limited to shooting; prior conduct not addressed for immunity here | Court: Declined to decide whether earlier conduct would vitiate immunity; addressed only shooting and granted immunity |
| Effect of Thompson’s criminal conviction on civil excessive-force claim | Thompson: conviction does not resolve Fourth Amendment excessive-force question in his favor | Howard: conviction establishes Thompson’s dangerousness (aggravated assault on officer) supporting reasonableness of force | Court: Conviction reinforced that Thompson posed a serious risk; did not decide all related collateral estoppel issues but found conviction relevant to danger assessment |
Key Cases Cited
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified immunity two-step test)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified immunity standard)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (objectively reasonable force standard)
- Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305 (qualified immunity for officer who shot during high-speed flight)
- Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194 (use of deadly force in vehicle flight not clearly established)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (use of force to end dangerous flight)
- Plumhoff v. Rickard, 134 S. Ct. 2012 (deadly force in vehicular flight context)
- Reichle v. Howards, 132 S. Ct. 2088 (clearly established law standard)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (requirement that precedent place question beyond debate)