Supreme Court of the United States - Assignment Example

Is Officer Brosseau entitled to qualified immunity for the use of excessive force?

Rule
The Court of Appeals decided for Brosseau finding that she was entitled to qualified immunity. There was a “hazy border between excessive and acceptable force” in Brosseau’s actions for which, she was entitled to qualified immunity. Officer Brosseau violated the Fourth Amendment, but she had the cause according to which, “the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to the others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force” after which, she was not regarded as a violator of the law. According to Haugen, Brosseau violated his federal constitutional rights.

Analysis
Glen Tamburello reported Officer Brosseau about some stolen tools from his shop and blamed Kenneth Haugen, his former crime partner. Later on, Brosseau came to know that for Haugen’s felony, there was no bail arrest warrant against him for charges of drugs and other offenses. When Haugen was in his mother’s driveway, Tamburello accompanied by Matt Attwood drove to Haugen, where they fought for which, a neighbor called 911. Brosseau reached the scene and due to her arrival, Haugen got a chance to get away and hide in a neighbor’s backyard. On a radioed report, Brosseau reached there and found Haugen. Haugen tried to escape by jumping into his jeep. Brosseau doubted him trying to get some weapon. However, he was searching for the keys to drive away. Brosseau ordered Haugen multiple times to get out of the vehicle and also fired several times at the driver’s side window with her handgun. She even tried to get the keys through the side window and hit Haugen with the barrel and butt of her gun, but ignoring all her commands and attempts, Haugen started and drove the jeep a little after which, Brosseau shot in his back considering the life of those officers in danger who were on foot.
While deciding for the case against Officer Brosseau, the cases Tennessee v. Gamer (1985), Graham v. Connor (1989), Cole v. Bone (1993), Smith v. Freland (1992), and Estate of Starks v. Enyart (1993) were discussed. The analysis revealed that Brosseau’s actions “fell in the hazy border between excessive and acceptable” putting forward that Brossaeu did not violate the Fourth Amendment due to which, she was entitled to qualified immunity.

Conclusion
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings. Officer Brosseau was entitled to qualified immunity, as she did not try to violate the Fourth Amendment and it was the situation that made her fire Haugen in the back. Read More