Rosa Cuevas v. City of Tulare, 107 F.4th 894

Quinntin Castro led police on a high-speed chase, driving recklessly and ultimately getting stuck in the mud while Cuevas was a passenger in the front seat with her hands up.
Officers tried to apprehend Castro by breaking the car window and deploying a police dog; Castro responded by shooting and killing the dog and injuring its handler.
Officers returned fire, aiming at Castro but inadvertently shooting and seriously injuring Cuevas; Castro was ultimately killed.
Cuevas sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming her Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force was violated.
The district court granted summary judgment to defendants, holding that Cuevas was not seized under the Fourth Amendment, and alternatively, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed on qualified immunity grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Cuevas "seized" under the Fourth Amendment?	Cuevas was seized when force was used against her while in the car.	She was not seized because she did not submit to police authority.	Yes, Cuevas was seized when force was used (via shots fired).
Did the officers use excessive force?	Officers' return fire was excessive as it hit an unthreatening bystander (Cuevas).	Return fire was constitutionally reasonable in response to an armed threat.	No clearly established law found this force unconstitutional; qualified immunity applies.
Did clearly established law prohibit the officers' actions?	Case law made it obvious that the officers' actions were unconstitutional.	No case law clearly established similar circumstances or prohibited their conduct.	No clearly established law; officers are entitled to qualified immunity.
Was the constitutional violation obvious, outside of case law?	The officers' conduct was obviously unconstitutional even without a case directly on point.	No obviousness here due to split-second, dangerous situation.	Not obvious; obviousness principle not applicable under these facts.

Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (passengers are seized along with drivers in vehicle stops)
Torres v. Madrid, 592 U.S. 306 (officer seizes a person by use of force to apprehend)
California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (seizure requires either physical force or submission to authority)
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (Fourth Amendment protects against excessive force)
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (reasonableness standard for Fourth Amendment use of force)
Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765 (officers justified in continuing to fire until a threat is ended)
Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (clearly established law must be particularized to the facts)
Monell v. Dept. of Social Services of NYC, 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability under § 1983)