Lori Braun v. Brian Burke, 983 F.3d 999

On Oct. 10, 2016, Arkansas State Trooper Brian Burke observed an SUV speed past (~90–95 mph) in a 55 mph zone and, less than two minutes after finishing a hit-and-run investigation, pursued it in his cruiser.
Burke activated lights/siren only briefly (~20 seconds), then averaged over 90 mph (peaking >110 mph) during the pursuit; he later swore he believed the SUV posed an emergent danger to the public and that pursuit was necessary to end the risk.
While Burke searched eastbound, Cassandra Braun (passenger in a westbound car) turned left into Burke’s lane; Burke could not stop and a collision killed Cassandra and injured Burke.
Braun (as estate administrator) sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process violation by Burke and a failure-to-train/supervise claim against Director Bill Bryant.
The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants; on appeal the Eighth Circuit reviewed de novo and applied precedent about the required culpability standard for high-speed driving.
The court held Burke’s sworn belief that he was responding to an emergency triggered the heightened "intent-to-harm" standard from County of Sacramento v. Lewis, Braun presented no evidence of intent to harm, and the supervisory claim failed for lack of an underlying constitutional violation; the judgment was affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Applicable culpability standard for high-speed driving that causes death (intent-to-harm vs. deliberate indifference)	Braun: apply deliberate-indifference standard (she cannot prove intent)	Defendants: apply intent-to-harm standard because Burke was engaged in a high-speed response to an emergency	Held: Court applied intent-to-harm standard because Burke subjectively believed he was responding to an emergency; Braun produced no evidence of intent to harm, so no substantive due process violation.
2. Municipal/supervisory liability for failure to train/supervise	Braun: Bryant failed to train/supervise/discipline Burke, creating liability	Bryant: supervisory liability requires an underlying constitutional violation by the trooper	Held: Because no constitutional violation by Burke was established, the failure-to-train/supervise claim against Bryant fails.

County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (Sup. Ct. 1998) (intent-to-harm standard applies to high-speed pursuits)
Terrell v. Larson, 396 F.3d 975 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (extends Lewis to high-speed driving in response to other emergencies and frames emergency inquiry as subjective)
Sitzes v. City of W. Memphis, 606 F.3d 461 (8th Cir. 2010) (officer's affidavit that he believed an emergency existed is not overcome merely by delay or failure to use lights/siren)
White v. Jackson, 865 F.3d 1064 (8th Cir. 2017) (supervisory liability requires an underlying constitutional violation)
Brockinton v. City of Sherwood, 503 F.3d 667 (8th Cir. 2007) (same principle on failure-to-train/supervise)
Dean v. McKinney, 976 F.3d 407 (4th Cir. 2020) (discusses objective factors and deliberate-indifference approach)
Sauers v. Borough of Nesquehoning, 905 F.3d 711 (3d Cir. 2018) (applies objective factors to find no emergency and uses deliberate indifference)
Bingue v. Prunchak, 512 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2008) (applies intent-to-harm standard in high-speed driving context)