Walker v. Davis, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 17456

Germany was killed after Deputy Davis rammed his motorcycle during a late-night pursuit across a muddy field.
Estate brought 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim on behalf of Germany's estate and his minor son, alleging Fourth Amendment excessive force.
District court denied Davis’s motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity; the matter proceeded on appeal in the Sixth Circuit.
Chase began for speeding; Germany crossed into a field; Davis followed in a cruiser and rammed the motorcycle, causing Germany’s death.
Court views facts in the light most favorable to Germany’s Estate and applies the two-prong qualified-immunity framework.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Davis’s ramming of the motorcycle an unlawful use of force under clearly established law?	Germany's estate: clearly established rights violated.	Davis entitled to qualified immunity unless clearly established law dictated unlawfulness.	Yes; the right was clearly established under the circumstances.
Did Garner/Scott govern this vehicle pursuit such that the officer’s conduct cannot be deemed clearly unlawful?	Clear guidance exists that deadly force is not justified when no threat is posed.	Scott limits Garner; context matters; no clear-law bar on ramming here.	Context-specific analysis shows the right was clearly established; Davis violated.

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) (deadly force not justified when suspect poses no immediate threat)
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (car-chase context limits Garner applicability; police may terminate dangerous chases)
Smith v. Cupp, 430 F.3d 766 (6th Cir. 2005) (general statements of law can warn but are not controlling in specific contexts)
Hayden v. Green, 640 F.3d 150 (6th Cir. 2011) (facts viewed in favor of plaintiff on qualified-immunity review)
Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194 (2004) (avoid high-level generality in clearly established-law analysis)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (permissible to address qualified-immunity prongs in any order)
Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (two-prong framework for qualified immunity (later refined by Pearson))
Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987) (clearly established right must be sufficiently clear to give notice)
Garner v. Ohio, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) (high-level rule about use of deadly force in fleeing-suspect scenarios)
Pasco ex rel. Pasco v. Knoblauch, 566 F.3d 572 (5th Cir. 2010) (considerations in terminating a chase by bumping a vehicle)
Abney v. Coe, 493 F.3d 412 (4th Cir. 2007) (damaging restraint and danger considerations for rammed-motorcycle scenario)
Sharp v. Fisher, 532 F.3d 1180 (11th Cir. 2008) (objective reasonableness of ramming to end a chase)
Cordova v. Aragon, 569 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir. 2010) (case-by-case analysis; spectrum of deadly force; Scott analogies)