McGrath v. Tavares, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 14776

Denise McGrath, administratrix of Anthony McGrath's estate, sued Officers Tavares and Almeida, Plymouth's Chief Pomeroy, and the Town of Plymouth under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force claims stemming from Anthony's death.
The fatal shooting occurred January 10, 2006, in Plymouth, after a nighttime car pursuit in which Anthony, driving a Camry, accelerated toward officers who had attempted to pull him over.
Almeida and Tavares pursued the Camry following an activated liquor-store alarm; the Camry repeatedly fled and drove erratically, including driving through a bank drive-through in the wrong direction.
During the confrontation, Almeida and Tavares drew their weapons; the Camry reversed, hit Almeida's cruiser, and eventually struck a telephone pole, after which the officers shouted commands.
Tavares fired four shots in total, two at Anthony as he appeared to threaten or drive toward him, and Almeida fired seven shots as the Camry moved toward Almeida after the initial exchange; Anthony was mortally wounded and died about two hours later.
The district court granted summary judgment to the officers, finding no Fourth Amendment violation and declining to reach qualified immunity; McGrath appealed, and the First Circuit affirmed after reviewing the record de novo.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Tavares's deadly force was objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment	McGrath argues the officers had no imminent threat and that deadly force was unreasonable	Tavares acted to prevent escape and protect himself and others from a dangerous, fleeing driver	Yes; the force was objectively reasonable under the circumstances
Whether the officers are entitled to qualified immunity	McGrath contends clearly established law prohibited this conduct	Defendants argue no clearly established right was violated given the facts	Yes; qualified immunity shields the officers

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1989) (establishes objective reasonableness standard for excessive-force claims)
Kenney v. Floyd, 700 F.3d 604 (1st Cir. 2012) (objective reasonableness in Fourth Amendment context; split-second judgments on scene)
Plumhoff v. Rickard, 134 S. Ct. 2012 (U.S. 2014) (deadly-force decisions in car-chase contexts depend on facts; clearly established standard nuanced)
Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194 (U.S. 2004) (not clearly established that shooting fleeing driver was unconstitutional in all cases)
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (U.S. 2007) (scenarios assessing danger to bystanders and officers in pursuing suspects)
Calvi v. Knox County, 470 F.3d 422 (1st Cir. 2006) (reasonableness standard applies to whether force was justified under the circumstances)
Whitfield v. Meléndez-Rivera, 431 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2005) (post-Brosseau authority discussed in qualified-immunity context)