In Willis v. Mock,[i] the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals was faced with the issue of whether it was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment for officers to use deadly force to end a dangerous, high-speed pursuit of a motorcycle.  A summary of the facts of Willis is as follows:

On April 13, 2008, Joseph Benjamin Willis left Tallahassee, Florida on his motorcycle bound for Florida’s Gulf Coast. As he headed south on U.S. Highway 319 near the Walmart Supercenter in Crawfordville, Florida, a Wakulla County deputy sheriff traveling north clocked him at 80 mph—25 mph over the posted limit. The deputy immediately turned around and set off in pursuit.

Thus began a high-speed chase that would ultimately involve at least six law-enforcement officers from four jurisdictions across two counties. Over the next 50 or so miles, Willis (1) rode hard in an effort to elude the officers, reaching speeds in excess of 110 mph, (2) veered onto the right shoulder to pass, (3) swerved into oncoming traffic across the double yellow line to pass, (4) forced oncoming traffic to take evasive action to avoid a head-on collision, (5) evaded two roadblocks set up by Franklin County deputies, and (6) attempted to barrel through a third roadblock set up by Apalachicola officers before crashing and suffering serious injuries.[ii]

The facts of the use of force that ended the pursuit with Willis are as follows:

At the behest of Deputy Cook, Apalachicola police officers Steve James and Chet Turner set up a roadblock at the base of the John Gorrie Memorial Bridge. The roadblock consisted of two marked patrol SUVs parked nose-to-nose across the highway. As positioned, there was a gap of less than three feet between the vehicles and a gap of about five feet between each vehicle’s rear bumper and the bridge’s guardrail.

In Willis’s version of events, as he traversed the half-mile straightway before the roadblock, Captain James and Sergeant Turner were positioned on the far side of their vehicles. Each leaned on the hood of his vehicle, weapon in hand: Captain James aimed his taser while Sergeant Turner targeted his service sidearm. As he approached, the officers gave no hand signals, nor did they appear to give any commands. Even so, he slowed to around 50 mph, sat up, and prepared to stop. At that point, he saw that the officers had their weapons trained on him.

Afraid that they were going to fire at him, Willis decided to try to shoot the gap between the vehicles. He failed. Right before the gap, the prongs from Captain James’s taser struck him. His muscles convulsed, and his bike clipped the front of Sergeant Turner’s SUV. He then crashed, skidding up the roadway on the bridge. When he finally came to a stop, he had suffered significant injuries for which he was airlifted to the hospital.[iii]

Willis filed suit and alleged that Captain James and Sergeant Turner violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment by using excessive force.  James and Turner filed motions for summary judgment.  The district court granted their motions, as the court found they did not violate Willis’s rights.  Willis appealed the grant of summary judgment to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.  [Note: This article will not cover other claims filed, but they were all resolved in favor of the government and government officials.]

The issue before the court of appeals was whether Captain James and Sergeant Turner violated Willis’s Fourth Amendment rights by setting up the roadblock on a bridge and then Tasing him as he was riding toward the gap between the police cars to end his dangerous, high-speed pursuit.

The Eleventh Circuit discussed several legal principles that are relevant to the issue.  The court first discussed whether the roadblock constituted a seizure of Willis under the Fourth Amendment.  The court stated

To prevail on a Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim, the plaintiff must show both that a seizure occurred and the force used was unreasonable. See Troupe v. Sarasota Cnty., Fla., 419 F.3d 1160, 1166 (11th Cir. 2005).

A “seizure” for Fourth Amendment purposes occurs when “there is a governmental termination of freedom of movement through means intentionally applied.” Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593, 597, 109 S. Ct. 1378, 1381, 103 L. Ed. 2d 628 (1989) (emphasis omitted). A person who crashes into a law-enforcement roadblock and thus comes to a stop has been “seized” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. See id. at 599, 109 S. Ct. at 1382 (“It was enough here . . . that according to the allegations of the complaint, [the plaintiff] was meant to be stopped by the physical  obstacle of the roadblock—and that he was so stopped.”).[iv]

In Willis’s case, he was seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when he crashed into the roadblock.

Next, the court of appeals examined if the seizure was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.  Willis argued that James and Turner set up the roadblock on the bridge to “entice” him to ride between the police vehicles so that he could be Tased and made to crash in a manner that was likely to result in his death or serious bodily injury.  In support of this argument, Willis pointed to Deputy Cook’s comment to set the roadblock on a bridge so “he ain’t got no way to go around.”[v]

The court discussed the relevant legal principles and stated

The ‘reasonableness’ inquiry in an excessive force case is an objective one: the question is whether the officer’s actions are ‘objectively reasonable’ in light of the facts and circumstances confronting him, without regard to his underlying intent or motivation.” Kesinger ex rel. Estate of Kesinger v. Herrington, 381 F.3d 1243, 1248 (11th Cir. 2004) (emphasis added). As a result, the question whether Captain James and Sergeant Turner acted unconstitutionally must be answered from the perspective of a reasonable officer standing in their shoes at that time. E.g., Lee, 284 F.3d at 1197.

The “reasonableness” of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. . . . The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments—in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly changing—about the force that is necessary in a particular situation.

Troupe, 419 F.3d at 1168 (quoting Menuel v. City of Atlanta, 25 F.3d 990, 996 (11th Cir. 1994)).[vi]

The court of appeals stated that it is only speculation that officers were trying to draw Willis into a trap.  Additionally, the officer’s underlying intent is not relevant to the reasonableness inquiry under the Fourth Amendment.

Further, the court of appeals stated

[E]ven if setting up the roadblock so that Willis had no way around or tasing him constituted the use of deadly force, this alone does not render the officers’ conduct constitutionally unreasonable. This is because even the intentional use of deadly force does not necessarily violate the Fourth Amendment. See Scott, 550 U.S. at 383, 127 S. Ct. at 1778 (“Whether or not [the officer’s] actions constituted application of ‘deadly force,’ all that matters is whether [his] actions were reasonable.”); see also Beshers v. Harrison, 495 F.3d 1260, 1268 (11th Cir. 2007) (holding that “if [the officer] intentionally used deadly force to seize [the plaintiff], the use of force was reasonable” under the circumstances).

The use of deadly force can be constitutionally reasonable where a driver “intentionally placed himself and the public in danger by unlawfully engaging in the reckless, high-speed flight” from law enforcement. E.g., Scott, 550 U.S. at 384, 127 S. Ct. at 1778; Beshers, 495 F.3d at 1268.[vii]

The court of appeals stated the above principles apply to Willis’s case because, whether or not Willis knew he was being chased by multiple officers from multiple jurisdictions, “Willis’s riding put himself and the public at risk of loss of life or property.”[viii] The court further stated

And because the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness inquiry is conducted from the officers’ perspective, not Willis’s, it is irrelevant whether he decided to barrel through the roadblock and continue his headlong flight because he reasonably believed that the officers were going to fire their weapons at him.[ix]

Therefore, the court of appeals held that Captain James and Sergeant Turner did not violate the Fourth Amendment by using a roadblock and a taser to stop Willis’s dangerous, high-speed pursuit on a motorcycle.  As such, the grant of summary judgment for the officers was affirmed.

Note:  Court holdings can vary significantly between jurisdictions.  As such, it is advisable to seek the advice of a local prosecutor or legal adviser regarding questions on specific cases.  This article is not intended to constitute legal advice on a specific case.

_______________________________________

Citations

[i] 600 Fed. Appx. 679 (11th Cir. 2015 Unpublished)

[ii] Id. at 680

[iii] Id. at 682-683

[iv] Id. at 683-684 (emphasis added)

[v] Id.

[vi] Id. at 684 (emphasis added)

[vii] Id. (emphasis added)

[viii] Id. at 685

[ix] Id.