Supreme Court Makes It Tougher to Sue Police
WASHINGTON — In a pair of victories for law enforcement, the Supreme Court on Monday made it harder to sue police for a questionable shooting of a fleeing suspect or for arresting a motorist on false charges.
In both instances, the justices said the courts should give police officers the benefit of the doubt and not allow them to be sued for doing their jobs.
Monday's decisions reversed rulings of the San Francisco-based U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that the police violated the rights of the suspects by subjecting them to an "unreasonable seizure."
Nearly 20 years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that police may not use "deadly force" to stop a fleeing felon, except when the officer has good reason to believe "the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others." Applying that rule has proven to be difficult for police and courts.
The Washington state case of Brosseau vs. Haugen fell along what the Supreme Court called "the hazy border between excessive and acceptable force." Because it was not a clear-cut case of a wrongful shooting, the justices ruled for the police officer in an 8-1 decision and threw out the lawsuit against her.
On Feb. 21, 1999, Officer Rochelle Brosseau of Puyallup, Wash., near Tacoma, went to a home to arrest Kenneth Haugen, who was accused of selling drugs and stealing tools from a co-worker. Haugen hopped into his Jeep and fumbled with the keys. Brosseau ordered him to stop, drew her gun and smashed a hole in a window.
When Haugen began to pull away, Brosseau shot him in the back. He sped from the driveway but pulled off the road after half a block and passed out. He sued the officer, alleging that the shooting was an "unreasonable seizure" in violation of the 4th Amendment.
The federal courts have been split over whether a jury should hear Haugen's lawsuit.
A federal judge in Washington dismissed his claim, but the 9th Circuit revived it two years ago in a 2-1 ruling and said a jury should decide whether the shooting was an unreasonable use of force.
Judge William A. Fletcher pointed out that Haugen did not have a gun and was not charged with a violent crime, and there was no evidence that his flight presented a threat to others. Judge Stephen Reinhardt joined him.
In dissent, Judge Ronald Gould said "the majority's sweeping position
