Summary
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated the grant of summary judgment to Sergeant Joshua Moser in Jeffery Payne’s action alleging excessive force under the Fourth Amendment and gross negligence under Virginia law. The court held that genuine disputes of material fact existed regarding the use of tactical vehicle-intercept and precision-immobilization maneuvers and regarding whether Payne made a furtive or threatening movement before Moser shot him. The case was remanded for further proceedings.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether genuine disputes of material fact precluded summary judgment on Payne's Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim based on the TVI and PIT maneuvers used to stop his vehicle.
- Whether genuine disputes of material fact precluded summary judgment on Payne's Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim based on Moser's shooting of Payne.
- Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment on Payne's Virginia gross-negligence claim.
- Whether the district court should have addressed qualified immunity in the first instance after determining that no constitutional violation occurred.
Holdings
- Summary judgment was improper because genuine disputes of material fact existed concerning Moser's responsibility for the maneuvers, the number of impacts, whether police lights and sirens were activated, and whether Payne knew the vehicles belonged to law enforcement. Viewing the evidence favorably to Payne, directing the use of the maneuvers was not objectively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances.
- Summary judgment was improper because a genuine dispute existed over whether Payne made a furtive or threatening movement toward the center console before Moser shot him.
- The grant of summary judgment on Payne's gross-negligence claim could not stand because the claim arose from the same disputed facts underlying the excessive-force claims and the district court's resolution rested on its erroneous determination that Moser's use of force was reasonable as a matter of law.
- The court did not decide whether Moser was entitled to qualified immunity. The district court must consider that issue in the first instance on remand for either excessive-force claim.
Key quotations
“The central inquiry of an excessive force claim is whether the officer’s actions were objectively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances.” (at 9-10)
“The fact that Sergeant Moser reasonably believed Payne was armed does not end our inquiry.” (at 16-17)
“At summary judgment, we do not make credibility determinations.” (at 17-18)
Factual background
Police detectives arranged a controlled drug buy involving Payne and planned to arrest him upon his arrival. When Payne became suspicious and slowly drove away in an unmarked-vehicle pursuit, Moser directed the detectives to stop him; the detectives used vehicle-intercept and ramming maneuvers that spun Payne's car and blocked it in. Seconds later, Moser shot Payne through the car window after claiming that Payne reached toward the center console, although Payne maintained that his arm remained at his side and that he was unarmed. The parties disputed whether police lights and sirens were activated, how many times Payne's car was rammed, whether Payne knew the pursuers were police, and whether he made a threatening movement.
Procedural history
Payne alleged that Moser used excessive force by directing tactical vehicle intercept and precision immobilization maneuvers and by shooting Payne during the arrest. The district court addressed only the shooting-related excessive-force claim, found no genuine dispute of material fact, held the shooting objectively reasonable, granted summary judgment, and dismissed the gross-negligence claim. The Fourth Circuit vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings.
Remand instructions
The district court must conduct further proceedings on Payne's excessive-force and gross-negligence claims and consider in the first instance whether Moser is entitled to qualified immunity on either excessive-force claim.