Nita Gordon v. Keith Bierenga
20f4th1077
| 6th Cir. | 2021Background
- Officer Bierenga attempted a traffic stop of Antonino Gordon after observing unsafe lane merging; Gordon fled and a brief pursuit ensued.
- At a busy intersection Bierenga spoke to Gordon; when traffic moved Gordon accelerated away and later drove into a White Castle parking lot and into the drive‑thru.
- Bierenga blocked Gordon’s BMW in the drive‑thru, exited with his weapon drawn, and stood near the front/side of Gordon’s car.
- Gordon reversed, bumped the car behind him and Bierenga’s police vehicle, then accelerated forward attempting to flee around Bierenga; Bierenga yelled “stop” and fired four shots through the driver’s side.
- Gordon later crashed and died; postmortem BAC was .27. The estate sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force; the district court denied Bierenga qualified immunity relying on Latits v. Phillips.
- The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that although the facts were close, existing precedent did not clearly establish that Bierenga’s use of deadly force in these specific circumstances was unlawful, so qualified immunity applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Qualified immunity for deadly force against a fleeing driver | Gordon’s estate: shooting was unconstitutional and clearly established by Latits and related decisions | Bierenga: no controlling precedent ‘‘squarely’’ governs these facts; a reasonable officer could believe deadly force was necessary given risk to public | Reversed denial of qualified immunity—right was not clearly established for these specific facts; grant qualified immunity |
| Whether the shooting was an excessive‑force (Fourth Amendment) violation | Estate: officer shot while to the side of a moving car or after it had passed him, making the shooting objectively unreasonable | Bierenga: Gordon’s prior reckless driving (turn into traffic, bumping vehicles, hitting police car) made him an ongoing danger to officer/public | Court did not resolve definitively on merits; analysis focused on clearly established prong and found precedent insufficient to put every reasonable officer on notice |
Key Cases Cited
- Latits v. Phillips, 878 F.3d 541 (6th Cir. 2017) (discussing limits on deadly force against fleeing drivers in low‑risk chase)
- Rivas‑Villegas v. Cortesluna, 142 S. Ct. 4 (2021) (clearly established‑law standard requires that precedent place constitutional question beyond debate)
- Mullenix v. Luna, 577 U.S. 7 (2015) (qualified immunity requires that every reasonable official would know conduct unlawful)
- White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548 (2017) (demand for closely analogous precedent in excessive‑force cases)
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) (deadly force permissible only if officer has probable cause to believe suspect poses serious threat)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (objective‑reasonableness test for excessive force)
- Cass v. City of Dayton, 770 F.3d 368 (6th Cir. 2014) (examining imminent danger in vehicular flight cases)
- Sigley v. City of Parma Heights, 437 F.3d 527 (6th Cir. 2006) (denying immunity where officer shot driver positioned to the side of fleeing car)
- Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765 (2014) (upholding force where high‑speed, dangerous chase created clear public risk)