Lena Davenport v. Borough of Homestead
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 16499
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- In Jan. 2013 Donald Burris led police on a low-speed, ~5-mile pursuit on East Carson Street (Pittsburgh) with high pedestrian traffic; his mother, Lena Davenport, rode front passenger and was later shot and wounded.
- Officers Schweitzer, Matakovich, Kennedy, and Gorecki (off-duty working security) fired at Burris’s vehicle during the pursuit; one shot struck Davenport; timing of Gorecki’s shots relative to the final crash is disputed.
- The District Court denied qualified immunity for the four officers on Davenport’s § 1983 excessive-force claims (Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments), identifying factual disputes about whether officers intentionally fired into the passenger compartment and whether the vehicle posed little danger.
- The officers appealed; the Third Circuit had jurisdiction to review denial of qualified immunity only to the extent it presented legal questions, but lacked jurisdiction over Gorecki’s factual challenge about when he shot.
- The Third Circuit held (1) Davenport’s claims are governed by the Fourth Amendment (passenger may seek Fourth Amendment relief), (2) summary judgment for Schweitzer, Matakovich, and Kennedy is required because their use of force was objectively reasonable given the threat to bystanders, and (3) qualified immunity applies because the law was not clearly established.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Davenport’s excessive-force claim is governed by Fourth Amendment or Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process | Davenport argued officers used excessive force, raising both Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims | Officers argued Fourth Amendment governs excessive-force claims during seizures | Fourth Amendment governs; passenger may bring Fourth Amendment claim (court joined majority of circuits) |
| Whether officers’ use of deadly force violated Davenport’s Fourth Amendment rights | Davenport argued officers intentionally or indiscriminately fired into passenger compartment despite little/no threat to others | Officers argued they fired to stop a dangerous vehicular flight threatening many pedestrians | Use of force was objectively reasonable as a matter of law given serious, immediate threat to bystanders; no Fourth Amendment violation by Schweitzer, Matakovich, Kennedy |
| Whether disputed facts (e.g., timing of Gorecki’s shots) preclude interlocutory review of qualified immunity | Davenport relied on genuine factual disputes to deny qualified immunity | Gorecki argued video resolves timing; appealed factual finding | Court lacked jurisdiction to resolve Gorecki’s factual dispute on interlocutory appeal; appeal dismissed in part for lack of jurisdiction regarding Gorecki |
| Whether the officers are entitled to qualified immunity (clearly established law) | Davenport argued Supreme Court precedent (e.g., Garner) clearly established the unlawfulness of shooting a passenger | Officers argued no controlling precedent clearly established that shooting a passenger during dangerous vehicular flight violated the Fourth Amendment | Qualified immunity applies: law was not clearly established in this context; summary judgment for Schweitzer, Matakovich, Kennedy reversed in their favor |
Key Cases Cited
- Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (passengers are seized when a vehicle is intentionally stopped)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (excessive-force claims arising from seizures are governed by Fourth Amendment reasonableness)
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (use of deadly force against an unarmed, nondangerous suspect is unconstitutional)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (video evidence can blatantly contradict the nonmoving party’s account; appellate courts should not adopt such contradicted facts)
- Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593 (seizure occurs when government’s means intended to stop movement terminate freedom of movement)
- Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305 (qualified immunity protects officers unless clearly established law gives fair notice that conduct is unlawful)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (clearly established prong requires precedent placing constitutional question beyond debate)
- Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843 (qualified immunity shields all but plainly incompetent or knowing violations)