Lindsey v. Hyler
918 F.3d 1109
10th Cir.2019Background
- On a November night in 2015, Kyle Lindsey (UTV driver) and passenger Zayne Mann were seriously injured when Lindsey lost control of an off-road utility vehicle (UTV) on a gravel road after a brief police pursuit by Officer Brandon Hyler.
- Officer Hyler activated lights and siren after observing the UTV run a stop sign; Lindsey accelerated onto a highway and into gravel, and the UTV rolled within less than a mile of pursuit.
- Plaintiffs alleged Hyler intentionally struck or forced the UTV off the road (Fourth Amendment excessive-force / seizure) and that the pursuit amounted to conscience-shocking conduct (Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process).
- Plaintiffs presented no eyewitness memory of the crash; Hyler testified he arrived after the UTV had already crashed. Plaintiffs’ expert could only say the UTV had damage “consistent with” an impact but could not say contact occurred; Hyler’s expert found no physical evidence of contact and attributed the crash to excessive speed entering a curve.
- District court granted summary judgment to Hyler and the City of Webbers Falls; on appeal the Tenth Circuit affirmed, concluding the record lacked evidence of a seizure or of conscience-shocking conduct, and thus Hyler was entitled to qualified immunity and the municipality could not be liable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hyler’s actions constituted a Fourth Amendment seizure / excessive force | Hyler intentionally contacted/forced the UTV off the road, causing the crash | No evidence of contact; Hyler arrived after crash; any contact was speculative | No seizure: plaintiffs failed to show contact or intentional action; Fourth Amendment claim dismissed |
| Whether the pursuit violated Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process | Initiating and continuing pursuit for minor infractions was conscience-shocking and arbitrary | Pursuit was a response to traffic violations and flight; no intent to harm or deliberate indifference | No due-process violation: conduct not conscience-shocking under controlling standard |
| Whether Hyler is entitled to qualified immunity | Constitutional rights were violated and clearly established | Plaintiffs failed to show any constitutional violation, so immunity applies | Qualified immunity affirmed because plaintiffs did not demonstrate a constitutional violation |
| Whether the City is liable under Monell for inadequate training | City’s training failures caused the constitutional harm | No underlying constitutional violation; thus no municipal liability | Municipal-liability claims fail because no officer constitutional violation was shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (use-of-force claims judged by Fourth Amendment reasonableness standard)
- County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (1998) (due-process liability requires conduct that shocks the conscience)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (intentional vehicle contact to stop a fleeing motorist can be a Fourth Amendment seizure)
- Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593 (1989) (distinguishes seizure by use of force from accidental effects of pursuit)
- Estate of Larsen ex rel. Sturdivan v. Murr, 511 F.3d 1255 (10th Cir. 2008) (treatment of vehicle contact as a seizure and framework for excessive-force analysis)