Joann Cooper v. Ryan Black, 503 F. App'x 672

Appellees Cooper and her son were seriously injured when police shot at a suspect during a bank robbery pursuit that involved an armed robber attempting to steal their car.
Officer Black fired 24 shots at the fleeing suspect, while other officers fired fewer shots; Cooper and her son were struck by bullets.
Cooper and her son sued the officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment and deprivation of liberty without due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The district court denied qualified immunity for all officers except Black; the court found Black’s 24-shot volley unreasonable and shocking to conscience.
The Eleventh Circuit granted rehearing, reversed the district court, and held that Black was entitled to qualified immunity and should be dismissed from the case with prejudice.
The court conducted a two-step qualified immunity analysis focusing on whether a violation occurred and whether the law was clearly established.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Cooper and son were seized under the Fourth Amendment	Cooper (Appellee) argues the shooting constituted a seizure.	Black contends no clearly established seizure occurred under the facts.	No clearly established seizure; qualified immunity applies.
Whether Black's use of force was clearly unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment	Appellees claim 24 shots were excessive and unreasonable.	Black argues force was reasonable to prevent escape and protect hostages.	Not clearly established that 24 shots were unreasonable; qualified immunity applies.

Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (U.S. 2007) (停车/vehicle stop seizure not clearly analogous here)
Vaughan v. Cox, 343 F.3d 1323 (11th Cir. 2003) (seizure when passenger is shot during pursuit referenced; distinguishable)
Lanier v. United States, 520 U.S. 259 (U.S. 1997) (clear rule requires obvious application to conduct; not satisfied here)
Priester v. City of Riviera Beach, Fla., 208 F.3d 919 (11th Cir. 2000) (requires obviousness for clearly established law)
Thomas v. Roberts, 323 F.3d 950 (11th Cir. 2003) (only Supreme Court or circuit/state law can clearly establish in circuit)
Willingham v. Loughnan, 321 F.3d 1299 (11th Cir. 2003) (fact-specific Fourth Amendment considerations)
Coffin v. Brandau, 642 F.3d 999 (11th Cir. 2011) (preexisting law did not clearly establish unreasonableness of 24 shots)
Jean-Baptiste v. Gutierrez, 627 F.3d 816 (11th Cir. 2010) (use of force continued until suspect fully secured)
Robinson v. Arrugueta, 415 F.3d 1252 (11th Cir. 2005) (deadly force against armed suspect considered reasonable in context)