Adams v. St. Lucie County Sheriff's Dept.

• Decision Date: 15 June 1992
• Docket Number: No. 91-5137,91-5137
• Citation: 962 F.2d 1563
• Parties: Robert Jeff ADAMS, Sr., Personal Representative for the Estate of Donald Demasco Adams, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ST. LUCIE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, Robert C. Knowles, Sheriff, Donnie Ingram, Defendants, J.M. Lindsey, Robert Soesbe, Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

Page 1563

962 F.2d 1563

Robert Jeff ADAMS, Sr., Personal Representative for the Estate of Donald Demasco Adams, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ST. LUCIE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, Robert C. Knowles Sheriff, Donnie Ingram, Defendants J.M. Lindsey, Robert Soesbe, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 91-5137.

United States Court of Appeals Eleventh Circuit.

June 15, 1992.

As Amended Aug. 12, 1992.

Julius F. Parker, Jr., Tallahassee, Fla., for defendants-appellants.

Evan I. Fetterman & Assoc., Salvatore Scibetta, North Palm Beach, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Before HATCHETT and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges, and HILL, Senior Circuit Judge.

HATCHETT, Circuit Judge:

In affirming the district court, we reject the appellant-deputy sheriffs' contention that intentionally ramming the automobile of a fleeing misdemeanant, causing it to crash (killing an occupant) did not constitute a seizure under the Fourth Amendment and did not violate clearly established rights of which a deputy sheriff would have known.

I. FACTS

In order to investigate reports of a petty theft, Deputy Sheriff Donnie Ingram of the St. Lucie County Sheriff's Department stopped an automobile on May 8, 1985, driven by Robert Adams, Jr. Donald Demasco Adams, Sr. was a passenger in the automobile's back seat. After being stopped, Robert approached Ingram's patrol car and informed Ingram that he was driving without a valid license in order to take the former operator of the automobile home. Ingram radioed the communications center to report the stop and learned that a warrant for Robert's arrest was outstanding for failure to appear in court on the misdemeanor offense of petty theft. No warrants had been issued for Donald's arrest.

Deputy Ingram, who on previous occasions had stopped and then released Robert, told Robert that he would have to go to jail. Robert stated that Ingram knew his identity and address, and returned to his automobile to drive away. Following these comments, a high-speed chase ensued through a residential neighborhood. Deputy Sheriff Robert Soesbe joined in the chase which covered approximately ten miles. During the chase, Soesbe asked J.M. Lindsey, a supervisor with the sheriff's department, whether he should try to "take out" the automobile. Lindsey advised Soesbe to shoot a bullet through the radiator of the automobile. Continuing the chase, Soesbe intentionally rammed the automobile several times. After the last contact between the automobiles, the Adams automobile went out of control, struck a telephone pole and a house, and was demolished. The driver, Robert, walked away with minor injuries, but his brother, Donald, died from injuries sustained in the crash.

The personal representative for the estate of Donald (the decedent's representative) brought this action against five defendants: Ingram, Soesbe, Lindsey, Sheriff Robert Knowles, and St. Lucie County, Florida. The amended complaint alleged that the conduct of the sheriff and the deputies was intentional, malicious, willful, wanton, and in reckless disregard of Donald's rights, or grossly negligent in that this conduct shocks the conscience and is fundamentally offensive to civilized society. Additionally, the amended complaint alleged that the conduct violated Robert's Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures.

Before trial, the claims against St. Lucie County were dismissed, and the court entered summary judgment in favor of Sheriff Knowles who was being sued only in his official capacity. Additionally, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Soesbe, Ingram, and Lindsey as to claims brought against them in their official capacities. The case proceeded to trial on the claims brought against Soesbe, Ingram, and Lindsey in their individual capacities. At the close of evidence, the court directed a verdit in favor of Ingram. The jury found that no constitutional violation occurred and returned verdicts in favor of Lindsey and Soesbe. On November 1, 1989, after a hearing on post-trial motions, the district court granted a new trial. Lindsey and Soesbe attempted to appeal on the basis that the granting of a new trial in effect denied the qualified immunity defense. This court declined to accept jurisdiction. The deputies then filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. The district court denied the motion for summary judgment.

II. ISSUE

The issue is whether the district court erred in denying the deputies' motion for summary judgment based on a claim of qualified immunity.

III. CONTENTIONS

The deputies contend that they did not violate clearly established law of which a reasonable law enforcement officer would have been aware and were thus entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. On the other hand, the decedent's representative contends that the law was clearly established at the time of the incident, and that it would have been apparent to a reasonable officer operating under similar circumstances that the deputies' actions constituted an unreasonable seizure violative of the Fourth Amendment.

IV. DISCUSSION

Specifically, the deputies contend that before the date of the incident in this case, the law was not clearly established that a law enforcement officer's intentional ramming of an automobile during a high-speed chase, causing it to crash, and thereby terminating the freedom of movement of a passenger in the automobile constituted an unreasonable seizure violative of the Fourth Amendment. ¹

In Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), the Supreme Court held that "government officials generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818, 102 S.Ct. at 2738. This objective standard which refined the general announcement of a qualified immunity rule in Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 507-08, 98 S.Ct. 2894, 2911-2912, 57 L.Ed.2d 895 (1978), was created to "avoid excessive disruption of government and permit the resolution of many insubstantial claims on summary judgment." Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818, 102 S.Ct. at 2738. In Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183, 191, 104 S.Ct. 3012, 3017, 82 L.Ed.2d 139 (1984), the Supreme Court reaffirmed the objective reasonableness standard created in Harlow and also held that "[n]o other circumstances are relevant in the issue of qualified immunity." Davis, 468 U.S. at 191, 104 S.Ct. at 3017.

To ensure that insubstantial claims were decided at the summary judgment phase, the Supreme Court in Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) held "that a district court's denial of a claim of qualified immunity to the extent that it turns on an issue of law, is an appealable 'final decision' within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291 notwithstanding the absence of a final judgment." Mitchell, 472 U.S. at 530, 105 S.Ct. at 2817. The Supreme Court pointed out in Mitchell that the entitlement of qualified immunity "is an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability; and like an absolute immunity, it is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial." Mitchell, 472 U.S. at 526, 105 S.Ct. at 2815.

The Eleventh Circuit followed the "immunity from suit" rationale of Mitchell in Ansley v. Heinrich, 925 F.2d 1339 (11th Cir.1991) when it held that

qualified immunity is a question of law that may be asserted in three ways: (1) on a pretrial motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim; (2) as an affirmative defense in the request for judgment on the pleading pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c); or (3) on a summary judgment motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e). All three motions precede the trial and require the district court to rule as a matter of law, whether the official is entitled to the defense of qualified immunity.

Ansley, 925 F.2d at 1347 (citations omitted). The court concluded in Ansley that "[t]he Supreme Court's qualified immunity precedent aims at one goal: to keep the public official out of the courtroom, free to exercise discretionary duties under clearly established law without the constant threat of lawsuits." Ansley, 925 F.2d at 1345.

This court must determine as a matter of law whether the deputies are entitled to qualified immunity before the trial in order to keep them out of the trial if possible. See Mitchell, 472 U.S. at 526, 105 S.Ct. at 2815; Ansley, 925 F.2d at 1347. If this court reverses the district court's denial of the motion for summary judgment, the deputies are entitled to qualified immunity and the case is at an end. See Mitchell, 472 U.S. at 528, 105 S.Ct. at 2816; Ansley, 925 F.2d at 1348. On the other hand, if this court affirms the district court's denial of the motion for summary judgment, the deputies are not entitled to qualified immunity, and the jury should determine the factual issues without further mention of qualified immunity. ² See Ansley, 925 F.2d at 1348.

The objective reasonableness standard announced in Harlow afford broad qualified immunity protection to "all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law." Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341, 106 S.Ct. 1092, 1096, 89 L.Ed.2d 271 (1986). In applying the standard, this court must "conduct its review through the eyes of an objective, reasonable government official." Nicholson v. Georgia Dept. of Human Resources, 918 F.2d 145, 147 (11th Cir.1990). The relevant inquiry is "could a reasonable official have believed his or her actions to be lawful in light of clearly established law and the information possessed by the official at the time the conduct occurred." Nicholson, 918 F.2d at 147. The court further defined the relevant inquiry...