mcgrath v. tavares, 1st cir. (2014)

7/26/2019 McGrath v. Tavares, 1st Cir. (2014)

1/24

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 12- 2277

DENI SE MCGRATH,ADMI NI STRATRI X OF THE ESTATE OF ANTHONY W. MCGRATH,

Pl ai nt i f f , Appel l ant ,

v.

RI CHARD T. TAVARES, EDWI N F. ALMEI DA,

ROBERT J . POMEROY, AND THE TOWN OF PLYMOUTH, MA

Def endant s, Appel l ees.

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[ Hon. Rober t B. Col l i ngs, U. S. Magi st r at e J udge]

Bef or e

Howar d, Stahl , and Thompson,Ci r cui t J udges.

Paul J . Dr i scol l , wi t h whom Dr i scol l & Gi bson was on br i ef ,f or appel l ant .

Leonard H. Kest en, wi t h whom Dei dre Br ennan Regan and Br ody,

Har doon, Per ki ns & Kest en, LLP wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ees.

August 1, 2014


2/24

THOMPSON, Circuit Judge. Thi s appeal st ems f r om t he

t r agi c deadl y shoot i ng of a si xteen- year- ol d boy named Ant hony

McGr at h ( "Ant hony") by a Pl ymout h pol i ce of f i cer . Fol l owi ng t he

unt i mel y deat h of her son, Deni se McGr at h ( "McGr at h") f i l ed a 42

U. S. C. 1983 act i on, al l egi ng t he pol i ce of f i cer s i nvol ved had

used excessi ve f or ce i n vi ol at i on of t he Four t h and Four t eent h

Amendment s. The t wo named pol i ce of f i cer s moved f or summar y

j udgment . Fi ndi ng no const i t ut i onal vi ol at i ons on t he par t of t he

pol i ce of f i cer who f i r ed t he l et hal shot at Ant hony, t he di st r i ct

cour t gr ant ed t he pol i ce of f i cer s' mot i on and di smi ssed al l cl ai ms.

McGr ath appeal s t he ent r y of summary j udgment . Af t er r evi ewi ng t he

r ecor d anew, we af f i r m.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Because thi s i s an appeal f r om t he ent r y of summar y

j udgment , we r el at e t he f act s i n t he l i ght most f l at t er i ng t o t he

nonmovi ng par t y - - i n t hi s case, McGr at h - - "as t he recor d wi l l

r easonabl y al l ow. " 1 McAr dl e v. Town of Dr acut / Dr acut Pub. Sch. ,

732 F. 3d 29, 30 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) .

The event s sur r oundi ng Anthony' s deat h t ook pl ace i n t he

ear l y mor ni ng of J anuar y 10, 2006 i n Pl ymout h, Massachuset t s.

Ar ound 3: 15 a. m. , on- dut y Pl ymout h pol i ce of f i cer s Edwi n F. Al mei da

1 I n set t i ng f or t h t he f act s of t hi s case, t he par t i es ask ust o come up wi t h di f f er ent ver si ons of what exact l y happened thatf at ef ul mor ni ng, but we r emi nd t hemt hat our obl i gat i on i s t o l ookt o t he compet ent evi dence i n t he recor d, and t he f act s andr easonabl e i nf er ences i t suppor t s.

-2-


3/24

and Ri chard T. Tavar es r esponded t o an act i vat ed bur gl ar al ar m at

a l i quor st or e (near t he i nt er sect i on of Samoset and Cour t

St r eet s) . At t he t i me t he di spat ch came i n, t he of f i cer s wer e i n

t hei r t wo respect i ve pol i ce car s at St andi sh Pl aza ( on Samoset

St r eet ) . As t ol d by t he of f i cer s, t he f ol l owi ng sequence of event s

t r anspi r ed i n a t i me span of appr oxi mat el y f i ve mi nut es.

A. Officer Almeida's Course

Havi ng r ecei ved t he di spat ch, Of f i cer Al mei da headed east

on Samoset St r eet t owar ds t he l i quor st or e wi t h hi s pol i ce

crui ser ' s bl ue l i ght s act i vat ed. As he appr oached t he i nt er sect i on

of Samoset and Cour t , he saw a west bound Toyota Camr y st oppi ng at

t he t r af f i c l i ght . The l i ght i n Of f i cer Al mei da' s di r ecti on was

r ed, but t ur ned gr een as he appr oached t he i nt er sect i on.

Si mul t aneousl y t o the east bound l i ght t ur ni ng gr een, t he west bound

Camr y t ur ned l ef t , and headed sout h on Cour t St r eet . Bel i evi ng

var i ous t r af f i c vi ol at i ons had been commi t t ed, Of f i cer Al mei da

deci ded t o pul l over t he Camr y. 2 He t ook a r i ght on Cour t St r eet ,

2 At t hi s poi nt , Of f i cer Al mei da thought t he Camr y had made ani l l egal l ef t t ur n on a r ed l i ght - - as i t was hi s under st andi ngt hat t he east bound gr een l i ght ( hi s l i ght ) had a t en second headst ar t on t he west bound gr een l i ght ( t he Camr y' s l i ght ) - - and had

not yi el ded t o an emer gency vehi cl e. Fur t her , he had not i ced t heCamr y had a si ngl e commerci al l i cense pl at e, r at her t han t he twor equi r ed of commerci al vehi cl es, and no commerci al marki ngs. Att he summary j udgment hear i ng bef or e the di st r i ct cour t , McGr at h' scounsel agr eed Of f i cer Al mei da coul d l egal l y st op t he Camr y once hehad cal l ed i n t he pl at e and r ecei ved i nf or mat i on t hat t he pl at e di dnot bel ong t o t hat par t i cul ar car .

-3-


4/24

t ur ni ng on hi s cr ui ser ' s si r en and wi gwags. 3 He r adi oed di spat ch,

i nf or mi ng t hemhe had spot t ed a vehi cl e l eavi ng t he l i quor st or e' s

vi ci ni t y, and was t r yi ng t o pul l i t over .

Of f i cer Al mei da headed sout h behi nd the Camr y, but t he

car di d not pul l over . I t di d event ual l y sl ow down at an

i nt er sect i on r oughl y f our ci t y bl ocks l at er , at whi ch poi nt Al mei da

was abl e t o get a qui ck l ook at t he dr i ver . But t he Camr y t hen

t ook of f agai n. Of f i cer Al mei da - - st i l l wi t h hi s pol i ce cr ui ser ' s

l i ght s, si r en, and wi gwags on - - was now i n act i ve pur sui t . 4 He

r adi oed di spat ch, advi si ng t hat t he dr i ver he was at t empt i ng t o

pul l over was r ef usi ng t o do so, and was on t he r un. Of f i cer

Al mei da wi t nessed t he Camr y dr i ve t hr ough a bank' s dr i ve- t hr ough

t el l er wi ndow i n t he wr ong di r ect i on. Al mei da' s l one pur sui t of

t he Camr y cont i nued t hr ough t he st r eet s of Pl ymout h unt i l Of f i cer

Tavares ( who had hear d t he ear l i er l i quor st or e al ar m broadcast )

ent er ed t he f r ay.

B. Officer Tavares's Course

Hear i ng t he i ni t i al di spat ch t o t he l i quor st or e and

bei ng i n t he ar ea, Of f i cer Tavar es r esponded as backup f or Of f i cer

Al mei da' s al ar m i nvest i gat i on. As he was dr awi ng near t o t he

l i quor st or e, he hear d Of f i cer Al mei da r adi o i n t hat he was pul l i ng

3 A wi gwag i s a devi ce f or f l ashi ng an aut omobi l e' s headl ampsat a pr eset r at e.

4 The par t i es agr ee t hi s i s wher e Of f i cer Al mei da' s "pur sui t "began.

-4-


5/24

over a dr i ver i n t he vi ci ni t y of t he busi ness. But Tavar es

cont i nued headi ng t owar ds t he l i quor st or e i n r esponse t o t he

act i vat ed bur gl ar al ar m. I t was not unt i l Of f i cer Tavar es hear d

Of f i cer Al mei da t el l di spat ch t he dr i ver was r ef usi ng t o st op and

was r unni ng t hat he changed cour se, and t ol d di spat ch he woul d head

t owar ds Al mei da' s l ocat i on. Wi t h hi s pol i ce crui ser ' s l i ght s and

si r en on, Of f i cer Tavar es qui ckl y j oi ned t he pur sui t .

C. Officers Almeida and Tavares's Shared Course

Of f i cers Al mei da and Tavar es pur sued t he speedi ng

zi gzaggi ng Camr y up Wat er St r eet unt i l i t r eached t he T

i nt er sect i on wi t h Nel son St r eet , wher e t he speedi ng dr i ver was not

abl e t o make t he t ur n on t i me, and cr ashed i nt o a st one wal l . The

t wo pol i ce of f i cer s pul l ed up behi nd t he Camr y: Of f i cer Al mei da

par ked hi s crui ser t o t he r ear of t he dr i ver ' s si de, and Of f i cer

Tavares t o t he r ear of t he passenger ' s si de. Al mei da t hen exi t ed

hi s cr ui ser , dr ew hi s gun, and began shout i ng commands at t he

dr i ver t o put hi s hands up and st ep out of t he Camr y. The dr i ver

f ai l ed t o compl y wi t h any of Of f i cer Al mei da' s commands. I nst ead,

he r evved t he engi ne and maneuver ed t he Camr y i n reverse bet ween

t he t wo pol i ce cr ui sers. The r ever si ng Camr y hi t Al mei da' s

cr ui ser , and cont i nued a coupl e of yar ds bef or e i t cr ashed i nt o a

t el ephone pol e.

The Camr y t hen r emai ned on t he t el ephone pol e f or a f ew

seconds. Of f i cer Tavar es was now t he one shout i ng commands. He

-5-


6/24

appr oached t he Camr y f r omt he f r ont passenger si de, i nst r uct i ng t he

dr i ver t o t ur n of f t he engi ne and get out . Of f i cer Al mei da was t o

Of f i cer Tavar es' s r i ght , al so f aci ng t he Camr y. Bot h pol i ce

of f i cer s had t hei r weapons dr awn and ai med at t he dr i ver . The

dr i ver , agai n, di d not compl y; t hi s t i me, he was l ooki ng st r ai ght

at Of f i cer Tavar es wi t h hi s hands on t he st eer i ng wheel .

Cont i nui ng t o i gnor e t he pol i ce of f i cer s' di r ect i ves t o t ur n of f

t he car , t he r ecor d r ef l ect s t he dr i ver r evved t he Camr y' s engi ne

and accel er at ed f or war d t owar ds Of f i cer Tavar es. Tavar es t hen

f i r ed hi s weapon t wi ce, st r i ki ng t he car ' s f r ont wi ndshi el d. One

of t he shot s hi t t he dr i ver i n t he upper r i ght ar m. As t he Camr y

passed Of f i cer Tavar es on hi s r i ght , and cont i nued i n Of f i cer

Al mei da' s di r ect i on, Tavar es f i r ed t wo mor e shot s. The f at al shot

ent ered t he Camr y t hr ough t he f r ont passenger wi ndow and st r uck t he

dr i ver i n t he back. Of f i cer Al mei da t hen f i r ed seven shot s, but

none st r uck t he dr i ver . Af t er hi t t i ng t he cur b and becomi ng

ai r borne, t he Camr y came t o a compl ete st op.

Of f i cer Tavar es i mmedi at el y r adi oed pol i ce di spat ch,

i ndi cat i ng t hat shot s had been f i r ed, and t hat an ambul ance was

needed. He si mul t aneousl y appr oached t he Camr y f r om t he r ear ,

whi l e Of f i cer Al mei da cl osed i n f r omt he f r ont . The dr i ver ' s door

was open and t he dr i ver was s l umped t o the l ef t of t he st eer i ng

wheel . Of f i cer Tavar es agai n yel l ed at t he dr i ver t o t ur n of f t he

car and get out , but t he dr i ver di d nei t her . Tavar es pul l ed t he

-6-


7/24

dr i ver f r om t he vehi cl e and bot h of f i cer s began t o handcuf f hi m.

Of f i cer Tavar es asked t he dr i ver sever al t i mes i f he had been shot .

Ther e was no r esponse. Once t he dr i ver was handcuf f ed and pl aced

f ace down on t he gr ound, t he of f i cer s began t o check hi m f or

weapons, and not i ced hi s l abored br eat hi ng. They r emoved t he

handcuf f s and began t o cut hi s cl ot hi ng t o l ook f or i nj ur i es. Thi s

was when t he of f i cer s not i ced t he gunshot wounds.

Of f i cer St ephen McLaughl i n ar r i ved on t he scene, and t he

t hr ee of f i cer s began t o admi ni st er f i r st ai d. Of f i cer s McLaughl i n

and Al mei da mai ntai ned pr essure on t he wounds and oper at ed t he ambu

bag, 5 whi l e Of f i cer Tavar es per f or med chest compr essi ons. Ot her

pol i ce of f i cers ( who had been rushi ng to t he scene when t he Camr y

i ni t i al l y at t empt ed t o f l ee) al so ar r i ved, as di d an ambul ance.

The par amedi cs t ook over . The dr i ver , si xt een- year - ol d Anthony,

was t aken t o a near by hospi t al wher e he was pronounced dead l ess

t han t wo hour s l at er at 5: 01 a. m.

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On J anuar y 5, 2009, McGr at h - - as admi ni st r at r i x of her

son' s est at e - - sued Of f i cer Tavar es, Of f i cer Al mei da, Chi ef of

Pl ymout h Pol i ce Depar t ment Rober t J . Pomeroy, and the Town of

5 "Ambu bag" i s a commonl y used pr opr i et ar y name f or a bagval ve mask. A bag val ve mask i s "an ai r way apparatus used t o covert he pat i ent ' s nose and mout h and begi n vent i l at i ng t he l ungsmechani cal l y by squeezi ng a r eservoi r of oxygen or ai r . " Bag val vemas k def i ni t i on, St edman s Medi c al Di c t i onar yht t p: / / www. medi l exi con. com/ medi cal di ct i onar y. php?t =52985 ( l astvi si t ed J ul y 24, 2014) .

-7-


8/24

Pl ymout h i n t he f eder al di st r i ct cour t f or t he Di st r i ct of

Massachuset t s. 6 She al l eged Of f i cer s Tavar es and Al mei da

( "Def endant s" ) used excessi ve f or ce i n vi ol at i on of t he Four t h and

Four t eenth Amendments.

Of f i cer s Tavares and Al mei da moved f or summary j udgment ,

aver r i ng McGr at h "ha[ d] not est abl i shed t hat t he use of deadl y

f orce vi ol ated Ant hony McGr ath' s Four t h Amendment const i t ut i onal

r i ght s and, i n any event , [ t hey wer e] ent i t l ed t o qual i f i ed

i mmuni t y. " McGr at h opposed t he ent r y of summar y j udgment ,

asser t i ng t he exi st ence of genui ne di sput es of mat er i al f act s.

On J ul y 15, 2011, t he di st r i ct cour t hear d t he mot i on f or

summar y j udgment and t ook i t under advi sement . On September 4,

2012, i t gr ant ed summary j udgment i n Def endant s' f avor , hol di ng

t hat Of f i cer Tavar es' s use of deadl y f or ce was obj ect i vel y

r easonabl e as a mat t er or l aw, and t hus, no const i t ut i onal

6 She r ai sed f eder al and st at e const i t ut i onal cl ai ms under t hef eder al ci vi l r i ght s st at ut e, 42 U. S. C. 1983, and t heMassachuset t s Ci vi l Ri ght s Act , Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 12, 11I( 1979) . She al so asser t ed suppl ement al st at e l aw cl ai ms f orwr ongf ul deat h, and assaul t and bat t er y.

-8-


9/24

vi ol at i on had occur r ed. 7 I t f ound no need t o addr ess t he i ssue of

qual i f i ed i mmuni t y. 8

McGr at h now appeal s.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

We revi ew t he ent r y of summar y j udgment de novo,

af f i r mi ng onl y i f t he r ecor d shows t her e i s no genui ne di sput e as

t o any mater i al f act and t he movi ng par t y i s ent i t l ed t o j udgment

as a mat t er of l aw. See Bos. Pr op. Exch. Tr ansf er Co. v. I ant osca,

7

Because none of Of f i cer Al mei da' s shot s hi t Ant hony, t hedi st r i ct cour t f ound t her e was no sei zur e - - a necessary el ement ofa cl ai m f or an unr easonabl e sei zur e as a r esul t of excessi ve f or ce- - and f ocused on t he f our shot s f i r ed by Of f i cer Tavar es. Weagr ee t hat t her e was no sei zur e, not sol el y because none ofAl mei da' s shot s hi t Ant hony, but al so because Al mei da' s mi ssedshot s di d not r est r ai n Ant hony' s f r eedomof movement . See Scot t v.Harr i s, 550 U. S. 372, 381 ( 2007) ( "A Four t h Amendment sei zureoccur s . . . when t her e i s a gover nment al t er mi nat i on of f r eedomofmovement t hr ough means i nt ent i onal l y appl i ed. " ( al t er at i onsomi t t ed) ( quot i ng Br ower v. Count y of I nyo, 489 U. S. 593, 596- 97( 1989) ) ) . For a Four t h Amendment sei zur e t o occur " a pol i ce

of f i cer has [ t o] i n some way r est r ai n[ ] t he l i ber t y of a ci t i zent hr ough physi cal f or ce or show of aut hor i t y. " Uni t ed St at es v.Camacho, 661 F. 3d 718, 725 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( quot i ng Ter r y v. Ohi o,392 U. S. 1, 19 n. 16 ( 1968) ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .Her e, Of f i cer Al mei da' s shot s, al t hough i nt ended t o appr ehendAnt hony, di d not st op or i n any way r est r ai n hi m. See Br ower , 489U. S. at 599 ( "We t hi nk i t enough f or a sei zur e t hat a per son best opped by the ver y i nst r ument al i t y set i n mot i on or put i n pl acei n or der t o achi eve t hat r esul t . ") .

8 Of f i cer s Tavar es and Al mei da had al so moved t he di st r i ctcour t t o ent er summary j udgment on al l r emai ni ng cl ai ms agai nst al l

def endant s once summary j udgment was ent ered i n t hei r f avor .Because t her e coul d be no muni ci pal or super vi sor y l i abi l i t y i fnei t her Tavar es nor Al mei da vi ol at ed Ant hony' s const i t ut i onalr i ght s, t he di st r i ct cour t di smi ssed McGr at h' s f eder al cl ai msagai nst Chi ef Pomeroy and Pl ymout h. And wi t h onl y st ate l aw cl ai msr emai ni ng, t he cour t decl i ned t o asser t suppl ement al j ur i sdi ct i on,and di smi ssed t hem as wel l .

-9-


10/24

720 F. 3d 1, 10 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) . At t he summary j udgment st age, we

must dr aw al l r easonabl e i nf er ences f r om t he r ecor d i n t he l i ght

most f avor abl e t o t he nonmovi ng par t y, di sr egar di ng any "concl usory

al l egat i ons, i mpr obabl e i nf er ences, and unsuppor t ed specul at i on. "

Al i cea v. Machet e Musi c, 744 F. 3d 773, 778 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) ( quot i ng

Smi t h v. J enki ns, 732 F. 3d 51, 76 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ) . We do not make

any cr edi bi l i t y det er mi nat i ons or wei gh t he evi dence. See

Rodr guez v. Muni ci pal i t y of San J uan, 659 F. 3d 168, 175 ( 1st Ci r .

2011) . We may uphol d an ent r y of summar y j udgment on any basi s

appar ent f r om t he r ecor d. See, e. g. , Bos. Pr op. Exch. Tr ansf er

Co. , 720 F. 3d at 10; St or / Gar d, I nc. v. St r at hmor e I ns. Co. , 717

F. 3d 242, 247 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) .

IV. DISCUSSION

A. Fourth Amendment

"A cl ai m t hat l aw- enf or cement of f i cer s used excessi ve

f or ce t o ef f ect a sei zur e i s gover ned by t he Four t h Amendment ' s

' r easonabl eness' st andar d. " Pl umhof f v. Ri ckar d, - - - U. S. - - - , 134

S. Ct . 2012, 2020 ( 2014) . " [ D] et er mi ni ng t he . . . r easonabl eness

of a par t i cul ar sei zur e . . . ' r equi r es a car ef ul bal anci ng of t he

nat ur e and qual i t y of t he i nt r usi on on t he i ndi vi dual ' s Four t h

Amendment i nt erest s agai nst t he count ervai l i ng government al

i nt er est s at st ake. ' " I d. ( quot i ng Gr ahamv. Connor , 490 U. S. 386,

396 ( 1989) ) . "To est abl i sh a Four t h Amendment vi ol at i on based on

excessi ve f or ce, a pl ai nt i f f must show t hat t he def endant of f i cer

-10-


11/24

empl oyed f orce t hat was unr easonabl e under t he ci r cumst ances. "

Kenney v. Fl oyd, 700 F. 3d 604, 609 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ( quot i ng

J enni ngs v. J ones, 499 F. 3d 2, 11 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) ) ( i nter nal

quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

Thi s r easonabl eness i nqui r y i s an obj ect i ve one; i t i s

not a quest i on of subj ect i ve i nt ent . Gr aham, 490 U. S. at 397

( "[ T] he quest i on i s whet her t he of f i cer s' act i ons ar e ' obj ect i vel y

r easonabl e' i n l i ght of t he f act s and ci r cumst ances conf r ont i ng

t hem, wi t hout r egar d t o t hei r under l yi ng i nt ent or mot i vat i on. ") .

We eval uat e "t he reasonabl eness of a par t i cul ar use of f or ce ' f r om

t he per spect i ve of a reasonabl e of f i cer on t he scene, r at her t han

wi t h t he 20/ 20 vi si on of hi ndsi ght . ' " Kenney, 700 F. 3d at 609

( quot i ng Gr aham, 490 U. S. at 396) . Our assessment "must account

' f or t he f act t hat pol i ce of f i cer s ar e of t en f or ced t o make spl i t -

second j udgment s - - i n ci r cumst ances t hat ar e t ense, uncer t ai n, and

r api dl y evol vi ng - - about t he amount of f or ce t hat i s necessar y i n

a par t i cul ar si t uat i on. ' " I d. ( quot i ng Gr aham, 490 U. S. at 396-

97) . " I n t he Four t h Amendment cont ext , t he use of deadl y f or ce i s

not excessi ve i f an obj ect i vel y r easonabl e of f i cer i n t he same

ci r cumst ances woul d have bel i eved that an i ndi vi dual posed a t hr eat

of ser i ous physi cal har mei t her t o t he of f i cer or ot her s. " Est at e

of Bennet t v. Wai nwr i ght , 548 F. 3d 155, 175 ( 1st Ci r . 2008)

( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

-11-


12/24

McGr ath ar gues t he Four t h Amendment di d not al l ow Of f i cer

Tavares t o use deadl y f or ce because he l acked "probabl e cause"

under Tennessee v. Gar ner , 471 U. S. 1 ( 1985) - - i . e. , "Wher e t he

of f i cer has pr obabl e cause to bel i eve t hat t he suspect poses a

t hr eat of ser i ous physi cal har m, ei t her t o t he of f i cer or t o

ot her s, i t i s not const i t ut i onal l y unr easonabl e t o pr event escape

by usi ng deadl y f or ce, " i d. at 11. She has mai nt ai ned f r om t he

st ar t t hat Of f i cer Tavar es and Of f i cer Al mei da wer e never i n any

danger of physi cal i nj ur y or deat h; par t i cul ar l y, at t he t i me

Tavares f i r ed t he shot t hat ki l l ed her son ( when t he Camr y

accel er at ed f or war d f r om t he t el ephone pol e) because nei t her

of f i cer was i n "or anywher e near " t he Camr y' s pat h of t r avel . 9

Unf or t unat el y f or McGr at h, t he r ecor d says ot her wi se. And she i s

unabl e t o put f or t h compet ent evi dence to di sput e i t . 10

9 As a sub- argument , McGr ath cont ends t he of f i cers act edunr easonabl y because t hey vi ol at ed pol i ce depar t ment pol i ci es. Butl ocal pol i ci es ar e not det er mi nat i ve of our const i t ut i onalanal ysi s. See Whr en v. U. S. , 517 U. S. 806, 815 ( 1996) .

10 We not e McGr at h does not make any page r ef er ences t o t her ecor d i n her r esponse t o Def endant s' st at ement of undi sput edmat er i al f act s, but f l at out deni es cer t ai n f act s ( al t hough shesomet i mes i ncl udes an argument or a br i ef expl anat i on of what shepur por t s t he f act s t o be) . I nst ead, McGr at h f i l ed her own separ at est at ement of di sput ed mat er i al f act s i n whi ch she does ci t e r ecor devi dence. The l at t er , however , does not r ef er ence Def endant s'

st at ement of mat er i al f act s, and t hus, has l ef t i t up t o t he cour tt o scour her submi ssi ons and connect t he dots. For t unat el y f orMcGr at h, she f i l ed sui t i n Massachuset t s. Unl i ke ot her di st r i ctcour t s wi t hi n our Ci r cui t whi ch have adopt ed sol i d ant i - f er r et i ngr ul es, t he Di st r i ct of Massachuset t s si mpl y r equi r es "[ t he] par t yopposi ng [a mot i on f or summar y j udgment ] . . . i ncl ude a conci sest at ement of t he mat er i al f act s of r ecor d as t o whi ch i t i s

-12-


13/24

What she poi nt s us t o ar e pol i ce phot ogr aphs of t he

r esul t i ng bul l et hol es i n t he Camr y i n an at t empt t o show t he

of f i cer s wer e never i n f r ont of t he accel er at i ng car . She ar gues

t hat "f r om t he St at e Pol i ce phot ogr aphs a l ay per son coul d

r easonabl y concl ude t hat t he penet r at i on hol es i n t he wi ndshi el d

f r omTavar es' f i r st and second shot s wer e not made f r omshot s t aken

di r ect l y i n f r ont of t he Camr y, " but "f r om of f t o t he r i ght or

passenger si de of t he Camr y. " And t hat , l i kewi se, " [ p] hot ogr aphs

of t he bul l et hol es caused by Al mei da' s shot s i nt o t he Camr y

est abl i sh t hat he was never l ocat ed ' i n f r ont ' of t he Camr y or i n

i t s pat h of t r avel . " But wi t hout exper t t est i mony on t he

t r aj ect or y of a bul l et , t hese phot ogr aphs are not enough t o show

where an of f i cer was st andi ng when he f i r ed hi s gun. The Rul es of

Evi dence si mpl y do not per mi t i t . See Fed. R. Evi d. 701 ( " I f a

wi t ness i s not t est i f yi ng as an exper t , t est i mony i n t he f or mof an

opi ni on i s l i mi t ed t o one t hat i s . . . not based on sci ent i f i c,

cont ended t hat t her e exi st s a genui ne i ssue t o be t r i ed, wi t h pager ef er ences t o af f i davi t s, deposi t i ons and ot her document at i on. "LR, D. Mass. 56. 1. The r ul e does not r equi r e an opposi ng st atementdenyi ng or qual i f yi ng t he f act s support i ng t he summary j udgmentmot i on t o "r ef erence . . . each numbered paragr aph of t he movi ngpar t y' s st at ement of mat er i al f act s" and "suppor t each deni al orqual i f i cat i on by a r ecor d ci t at i on" ( l i ke t he Di st r i cts of Mai ne

and Puer t o Ri co) , D. Me. R. 56( c) and D. P. R. L. Cv. R. 56( c) , or t o" f i l e a St at ement of Di sput ed Fact s, whi ch shal l be number edcor r espondi ngl y t o t he St at ement of Undi sput ed Fact s, and whi chshal l i dent i f y t he evi dence est abl i shi ng t he di sput e" ( l i ke t heDi st r i ct of Rhode I sl and) , D. R. I . LR Cv 56( a) ( 3) . Accor di ngl y,al t hough i nconveni ent f or us, McGr at h i s seemi ngl y i n compl i ancewi t h Local Rul e 56. 1 f or t he Di st r i ct of Massachuset t s.

-13-


14/24

t echni cal , or ot her speci al i zed knowl edge . . . . ") . Mor eover , t he

Massachuset t s St at e Pol i ce Col l i si on Anal ysi s & Reconst r uct i on

Sect i on For ensi c Mappi ng Repor t ( t he onl y exper t t est i mony on

r ecor d) cut s agai nst McGr at h' s asser t i on, concl udi ng t hat " [ d] ue t o

a var i et y of f act or s . . . i t i s not possi bl e t o accur at el y

r epr esent t he exact dynami c t r aj ect or i es of t he bul l et s as t hey

ent er ed t he vehi cl e. "

McGr at h al so poi nt s t o a pat t er n of shat t er ed gl ass

i l l ust r at ed i n bot h t he Dowd f or ensi c map11 and a sket ch of t he

scene by Li eut enant Gi l ardi 12 i n another at t empt t o show t he

of f i cer s wer e not i n f r ont of t he Camr y. McGr at h cont ends t hat t he

pat t er n of shat t er ed gl ass i s a r esul t of Tavar es' s t hi r d shot

hi t t i ng t he Camr y' s f r ont passenger wi ndow, when he was no l onger

i n t he car ' s pat h, and t hat i t "concl usi vel y est abl i shes t hat as

11 St at e Trooper Ti mot hy Dowd, an acci dent r econst r uct i oni st ,pr epar ed t hi s map as par t of t he pol i ce i nvest i gat i on. I t i s "af or ensi c map of t he ar ea surr oundi ng t he i nt er sect i on of Wat erSt r eet and Nel son St r eet , " and i ncl udes " t he ar ea roadways,sur r oundi ng st r uct ur es and sur r oundi ng l andscape, " as wel l as"evi dence and vehi cl es l ocat ed wi t hi n t hi s ar ea. " Copi es of i twer e pr ovi ded t o Tavar es and Al mei da dur i ng t hei r r espect i vedeposi t i ons and each marked up a map t o i l l ust r ate t he chr onol ogyof event s. Because t he Dowd f orensi c map does not r ef erence ei t herof f i cer , we l ook t o the marked- up maps.

12 Lt . Gi l ar di of t he Massachuset t s St at e Pol i ce Cr i me Scene

Ser vi ces Sect i on ar r i ved at t he scene at appr oxi mat el y 5: 30 a. m.Al ong wi t h ot her dut i es, he was t asked t o sket ch t he cr i me scene.I n what i s r el evant t o McGr at h' s pat t er n of shat t er ed gl assargument , hi s sket ch of t he scene shows a gr oup of dots l abel ed"Gl ass Frags, " and hi s of f i ci al r epor t says "[ t ] her e was al sobr oken wi ndow gl ass on t he st r eet behi nd t he [ Camr y] . " Nothi ngmor e.

-14-


15/24

t he Camr y pr oceeded f r omt he ut i l i t y pol e acr oss Wat er St r eet , i t s

cour se of t r avel was di r ect l y west er l y, wel l t o t he sout h of . . .

where Tavar es [ and Al medi a] cl ai m[ ed] t o have been st andi ng when

[ Tavar es] f i r ed shot s one, t wo, and t hr ee. " Af t er scour i ng

McGr at h' s br i ef s (and f i l i ngs i n di st r i ct cour t ) , however , i t i s

not cl ear how she pur por t s t o est abl i sh t hi s. For t he mar ked- up

copi es of t he Dowd map pl ace t he shat t ered gl ass on t he gr ound past

t he poi nt where Of f i cer Tavar es was st andi ng when he began t o

shoot , whi ch the r ecord evi dence shows occurr ed once t he Camr y was

al r eady accel er at i ng f or war d f r om t he pol e. And Of f i cer Tavar es

t est i f i ed Ant hony was no l onger dr i vi ng t owar ds hi m, but t owar ds

wher e he bel i eved Al mei da t o be, when he f i r ed hi s t hi r d shot

( whi ch McGr ath cl ai ms shat t ered t he f r ont passenger wi ndow) . Thus,

even empl oyi ng McGr at h' s t heor y, t he pat t ern of shat t er ed gl ass

does not cont r adi ct t he pol i ce account t hat t he Camr y i ni t i al l y

dr ove t owar ds the of f i cer s. Thi s i s par t i cul ar l y so, gi ven Tavar es

t est i f i ed t he Camr y veer ed away f r om hi m, and t owards Al mei da,

af t er he f i r ed hi s f i r st t wo shot s. As f or Lt. Gi l ar di ' s sket ch,

t he onl y ment i on as t o the of f i cer s' wher eabout s i s not i n t he

sket ch, but i n t he accompanyi ng of f i ci al r epor t , whi ch st at es "[ a] s

Pl ymout h Pol i ce of f i cer s appr oached t he [ Camr y] , i t dr ove f or war d

i n a west er l y di r ect i on, t owar d t he of f i cer s who began shoot i ng at

t he oper ator of t he [ Camr y] . " ( Emphasi s added) .

-15-


16/24

Accor di ngl y, despi t e McGr at h' s cl ai ms t o t he cont r ar y,

t he uncont r over t ed f act s i n t he recor d, as establ i shed by the

pol i ce i nci dent r epor t , and the deposi t i on t est i mony and mar ked- up

map of each of f i cer , show t hat when Of f i cer Tavar es f i r ed shot s one

and t wo, Ant hony was dr i vi ng t owards hi m. 13 The choi ces were t o

shoot or r i sk bei ng r un over . Thi s i s the t ype of "spl i t - second

j udgment " pol i ce of f i cer s ar e f or ced t o make, and whi ch we must

t ake i nt o account i n assessi ng an of f i cer ' s act i ons. A r easonabl e

of f i cer i n t hi s si t uat i on coul d r easonabl y bel i eve he was f aci ng a

t hr eat of ser i ous physi cal har m, i f not deat h. Af t er al l , a car

can be used as a deadl y weapon. Cf . Scot t v. Har r i s, 550 U. S. 372,

383 ( 2007) ( " [ T]he thr eat posed by the f l i ght on f oot of an unar med

suspect [ i s not ] even r emotel y comparabl e to t he ext r eme danger t o

human l i f e posed by [a car chase] . " ) .

The pol i ce r epor t , t he of f i cer s' deposi t i on t est i moni es,

and the marked- up maps al so est abl i sh t hat when Of f i cer Tavar es

f i r ed shot s t hr ee and f our , he bel i eved Of f i cer Al mei da was t o hi s

r i ght , and t he Camr y was headed i n t hat di r ect i on. Cont r ar y t o

13 As a general cont ent i on, McGr ath argues Tavares and Al mei dacoul d have l i ed i n t he pol i ce r epor t and i n t hei r deposi t i ons. Butt hi s br oad ar gument i s wi t hout mer i t , f or a genui ne di sput e as t oa mat er i al f act cannot be cr eat ed "by rel yi ng on t he hope t hat t he

j ury wi l l not t r ust t he cr edi bi l i t y of t he wi t ness. " Sear s,Roebuck & Co. v. Gol dst one & Sudal t er , 128 F. 3d 10, 18 ( 1st Ci r .1997) ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ."Ther e must be some af f i r mat i ve evi dence" t hat t he of f i cer s arel yi ng. I d. Ther e i s none i n t hi s case, and t her e i s not hi ngi nher ent l y unbel i evabl e about Of f i cer Tavar es or Of f i cer Al mei da' st est i mony.

-16-


17/24

McGr at h' s cont ent i on, Of f i cer Tavar es had no dut y to t ur n ar ound

and pi n down Of f i cer Al mei da' s exact l ocat i on. Cf . Pl umhof f , 134

S. Ct . at 2023 ( st r essi ng an of f i cer had not vi ol at ed cl ear l y

est abl i shed l aw "when she f i r ed at a f l eei ng vehi cl e t o pr event

possi bl e har mt o ' ot her of f i cer s on f oot who [ she] bel i eved wer e i n

t he i mmedi at e ar ea' " ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( emphasi s added) ) .

Agai n, any reasonabl e of f i cer i n Tavar es' s posi t i on, f aced wi t h t he

same r eckl ess dr i ver who had al most r un hi m over a f r act i on of a

second ear l i er , coul d r easonabl y bel i eve t hat Of f i cer Al mei da was

i n gr ave physi cal har m' s way. See i d. at 2021 ( " [ The f l eei ng

suspect ] ' s out r ageousl y reckl ess dr i vi ng posed a gr ave publ i c

saf et y r i sk. " ) . Remember , pr ot ect i ng onesel f or ot her s f r om

ser i ous physi cal har mj ust i f i es a pol i ce of f i cer ' s resor t t o deadl y

f or ce. See Wai nwr i ght , 548 F. 3d at 175.

From Of f i cer Tavar es' s per spect i ve, Ant hony was

danger ous, and he acted accor di ngl y. He f aced a dr i ver who l ed hi m

and another of f i cer i n a car chase t hr ough downt own Pl ymout h i n t he

wee hour s of t he morni ng, and was ref usi ng t o heed t o l egi t i mate

pol i ce of f i cer di r ect i ves ( not onl y had Ant hony ref used t o st op

when pol i ce of f i cer s at t empt ed t o pul l hi mover , but he had r ef used

t o f ol l ow any pol i ce of f i cer commands t her eaf t er ) . Thr oughout t he

car chase, Ant hony act ed wi t h compl et e di sr egar d f or Of f i cer

Tavares and Of f i cer Al mei da' s saf et y or t he saf et y of anybody el se

t hat mi ght have been on t he st r eet . See Scot t , 550 U. S. at 383- 84

-17-


18/24

( l ooki ng at t he "act ual and i mmi nent t hr eat t o the l i ves of any

pedest r i ans who mi ght have been pr esent , t o ot her ci vi l i an

mot or i st s, and t o the of f i cer s i nvol ved i n t he chase" when

assessi ng t he gover nment al i nt er est i n ensur i ng publ i c saf et y) . We

poi nt out t hat t he chase was st i l l ongoi ng when Tavar es f i r ed hi s

weapon. I t di d not concl ude wi t h t he st one wal l col l i si on, seei ng

as Ant hony qui ckl y pi cked up hi s f l i ght by rever si ng t he Camr y i n

bet ween t he pol i ce cr ui sers. See Pl umhof f , 134 S. Ct . at 2021

( f i ndi ng a car chase had not concl uded when t he suspect ' s car

"col l i ded wi t h a pol i ce car and came t empor ar i l y t o a near

st andst i l l , " because "[ l ] ess t han t hr ee seconds l at er , [ t he

suspect ] r esumed maneuver i ng hi s car" ) . Nor di d i t end when t he

Camr y hi t t he t el ephone pol e, as Ant hony qui ckl y r esumed dr i vi ng

f or war d af t er t hat . See i d. Under t hese ci r cumst ances, we cannot

say Of f i cer Tavar es act ed unr easonabl y by shoot i ng at Ant hony.

" [ A] t t he moment when t he shot s wer e f i r ed, al l t hat a r easonabl e

pol i ce of f i cer coul d have concl uded was t hat [ Ant hony] was i nt ent

on r esumi ng hi s f l i ght and t hat , i f he was al l owed t o do so, he

woul d once agai n pose a deadl y t hr eat f or [ t he of f i cer s, as wel l as

f or ] ot her s on t he r oad. " I d. at 2022. Thi s t hr eat t o of f i cer and

publ i c saf et y i s pr eci sel y t he "pr obabl e cause" Gar ner r ef er s t o.

I n sum, f or McGr at h t o succeed on her Four t h Amendment

cl ai m, she must est abl i sh t hat Of f i cer Tavar es' s shoot i ng at

Ant hony was not obj ect i vel y reasonabl e "i n l i ght of t he

-18-


19/24

ci r cumst ances and t he f act s known t o [ hi m] at t he t i me. " Cal vi v.

Knox Count y, 470 F. 3d 422, 428 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) . She cannot . As we

j ust ment i oned, Of f i cer Tavares' s use of deadl y f or ce was

obj ect i vel y reasonabl e because a r easonabl e of f i cer i n t he same

ci r cumst ances coul d have bel i eved Ant hony posed a t hr eat of ( at t he

ver y l east ) ser i ous physi cal har mt o hi s per son when he f i r ed shot s

one and t wo, and an i dent i cal t hr eat t o Of f i cer Al mei da when he

f i r ed shot s t hr ee and f our . See Wai nwr i ght , 548 F. 3d at 175. A

r easonabl e of f i cer coul d have l i kewi se concl uded Ant hony "woul d

once agai n pose a deadl y t hr eat f or ot her s" i f he had r esumed hi s

f l i ght . See Pl umhof f , 134 S. Ct . at 2022. Mor eover , Of f i cer

Tavares' s t hi r d and f our t h shot s ar e al so j ust i f i ed by Ant hony' s

f ai l ur e t o abandon hi s at t empt t o f l ee af t er t he i ni t i al t wo shot s

wer e f i r ed, cont i nui ng t o pose an i mmi nent t hr eat t o t he publ i c.

See, e. g. , i d. Because t he r ecor d does not est abl i sh a Four t h

Amendment vi ol at i on, McGr ath' s cl ai m cannot survi ve summar y

j udgment .

B. Qualified Immunity

I n any event , even i f a const i t ut i onal vi ol at i on was

est abl i shed, Def endant s woul d st i l l be ent i t l ed t o summar y j udgment

based on qual i f i ed i mmuni t y because t hey di d not vi ol at e cl ear l y

est abl i shed l aw. We expl ai n.

"An of f i ci al sued under 1983 i s ent i t l ed t o qual i f i ed

i mmuni t y unl ess i t i s shown t hat t he of f i ci al vi ol at ed a st at ut or y

-19-


20/24

or const i t ut i onal r i ght t hat was cl ear l y est abl i shed at t he t i me of

t he chal l enged conduct . " Pl umhof f , 134 S. Ct . at 2023 ( i nt er nal

quotat i on marks omi t t ed) . "And a def endant cannot be sai d t o have

vi ol at ed a cl ear l y est abl i shed r i ght unl ess t he r i ght ' s cont our s

wer e suf f i ci ent l y def i ni t e t hat any r easonabl e of f i ci al i n t he

def endant ' s shoes woul d have under st ood t hat he was vi ol at i ng i t . "

I d. " [ E] xi st i ng pr ecedent must have pl aced t he st at ut or y or

const i t ut i onal quest i on conf r ont ed by t he of f i ci al beyond debat e. "

I d. ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

The bur den of demonst r at i ng t he l aw was cl ear l y

est abl i shed at t he t i me of t he al l eged const i t ut i onal vi ol at i on i s

on t he pl ai nt i f f , McGr at h. See Cor t s- Reyes v. Sal as- Qui nt ana, 608

F. 3d 41, 52 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) . Al t hough McGr at h admi t t edl y di d not

i nt end t o devel op her qual i f i ed i mmuni t y ar gument on appeal , 14 i n

her r epl y br i ef , she poi nt s us t o Gar ner and Whi t f i el d v. Mel ndez-

Ri ver a, 431 F. 3d 1 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) , ar gui ng a r easonabl e pol i ce

of f i cer i n 2006 woul d have been awar e t hat " i t i s a const i t ut i onal

vi ol at i on t o ' sei ze an unar med, nondanger ous suspect by shoot i ng

hi m dead. ' " But t hese cases i n no way "cl ear l y est abl i sh" t hat

Of f i cer Tavar es' s conduct was i n vi ol at i on of t he Four t h Amendment .

Mai nl y because t he mat er i al f act s i n bot h ar e ver y di f f er ent f r om

14 McGr at h i nsi st s i n her appel l at e br i ef t hat because t hedi st r i ct cour t di d not gr ant summar y j udgment on qual i f i ed i mmuni t ygr ounds, she does not need t o est abl i sh t he of f i cer s wer e notent i t l ed t o qual i f i ed i mmuni t y.

-20-


21/24

t he ones here. Garner and Whi t f i el d i nvol ved unarmed suspect s who

were shot whi l e f l eei ng on f oot , and who posed no i mmedi ate t hr eat

t o t he l i ves of t he of f i cer s or ot her s ar ound t hem. And ( as we

j ust di scussed) , t he r ecor d i n t he present case est abl i shes Anthony

di d pose a si gni f i cant t hr eat of deat h or ser i ous physi cal i nj ur y

when Of f i cer Tavar es shot hi m. Hi s weapon was hi s car , whi ch he

was dr i vi ng at t he pol i ce of f i cer s. Pl us, and mor e i mpor t ant l y,

accor di ng t o Gar ner , " [ w] her e t he of f i cer has pr obabl e cause t o

bel i eve t hat t he suspect poses a t hr eat of ser i ous physi cal har m,

ei t her t o t he of f i cer or t o ot her s, i t i s not consti t ut i onal l y

unr easonabl e t o pr event escape by usi ng deadl y f or ce. " 471 U. S. at

11.

The Supreme Cour t ' s di scussi on of qual i f i ed i mmuni t y i n

Pl umhof f - - whi ch i nvol ved a suspect who was ki l l ed by pol i ce ami d

a car chase, dur i ng whi ch t he suspect al most hi t an of f i cer wi t h

hi s car - - sheds mor e l i ght on our par t i cul ar i nqui r y. Ref er r i ng

t o i t s 2004 deci si on i n Br osseau v. Haugen, 543 U. S. 194 ( 2004)

( per cur i am) , t he Cour t out r i ght conf i r med t hat "as of Febr uar y 21,

1999 . . . i t was not cl ear l y est abl i shed t hat i t was

unconst i t ut i onal t o shoot a f l eei ng dr i ver t o pr ot ect t hose whom

hi s f l i ght mi ght endanger . " Pl umhof f , 134 S. Ct . at 2023.

Br osseau, i n t ur n, had hel d

t hat a pol i ce of f i cer di d not vi ol at e cl ear l yest abl i shed l aw when [ on Febr uary 21, 1999]she f i r ed at a f l eei ng vehi cl e t o pr eventpossi bl e har m t o ot her of f i cer s on f oot who

-21-


22/24

she bel i eved were i n t he i mmedi ate ar ea,occupi ed vehi cl es i n t he dr i ver ' s pat h, andany ot her ci t i zens who mi ght be i n t he ar ea.

I d. ( al t er at i ons and el l i pses omi t t ed) ( quot i ng Br osseau, 543 U. S.

at 197) ( i nt ernal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . The Br osseau Cour t had

deemed t he reasonabl eness of deadl y f or ce by a pol i ce of f i cer i n

r esponse t o a car chase t o be "an area i n whi ch t he resul t depends

ver y much on t he f act s of each case and . . . t he [ t hen- exi st i ng

casel aw] by no means cl ear l y est abl i shed t hat t he of f i cer ' s conduct

vi ol at ed t he Four t h Amendment . " I d. ( ci t i ng Br osseau, 543 U. S. at

201) ( al t er at i ons omi t t ed) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

On account of t hi s, t he Pl umhof f Cour t t el l s us t hat t o

overcome a qual i f i ed i mmuni t y def ense i n a case where a pol i ce

of f i cer f i r ed at "a f l eei ng dr i ver t o pr ot ect t hose whomhi s f l i ght

mi ght endanger , " a pl ai nt i f f woul d have t o show "at a mi ni mum" t hat

t he of f i cer ' s conduct i s "mat er i al l y di f f er ent f r omt he conduct i n

Br osseau" or t hat between Febr uary 21, 1999, and t he date of t he

al l eged const i t ut i onal vi ol at i on "t her e emer ged ei t her cont r ol l i ng

aut hor i t y or a r obust consensus of cases of per suasi ve aut hor i t y

t hat woul d al t er our anal ysi s of t he qual i f i ed i mmuni t y quest i on. "

I d. ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

McGr ath cannot show ei t her .

The f act s i n t hi s case ar e mor e f avorabl e t o t he shoot i ng

pol i ce of f i cer t han t he f acts i n Br osseau. Fi r st , t he pol i ce

of f i cer i n Br osseau f i r ed at t he dr i ver when he "had j ust begun t o

-22-


23/24

f l ee and . . . had not yet dr i ven hi s car i n a danger ous manner . "

I d. Wher eas her e, Of f i cer Tavar es f i r ed hi s weapon dur i ng a car

chase "t hat i ndi sput abl y posed a danger bot h t o t he of f i cer s

i nvol ved and t o any ci vi l i ans who happened t o be near by. " I d.

Second, t he suspect dr i ver i n Br osseau was not dr i vi ng t owar ds t he

pol i ce of f i cer when t he of f i cer shot hi m, and t hus, di d not pr esent

as i mmi nent of a t hr eat t o t he pol i ce of f i cer as i n t hi s case.

The onl y post - Februar y 21, 1999 ( and pre- J anuar y 10,

2006) case McGr at h ci t es as aut hor i t y f or her "cl ear l y est abl i shed"

argument i s Whi t f i el d, whi ch we al r eady addr essed a f ew pages back.

Al l t hi ngs sai d, McGr at h does not poi nt us t o any case si nce

Br osseau t hat cl ear l y est abl i shes t he unconst i t ut i onal i t y of usi ng

deadl y f or ce t o end a car chase t hat t hr eat ened t he physi cal saf et y

of t he pol i ce of f i cer s and ot her s i n t he ar ea.

V. CONCLUSION

I t i s never easy f or a par ent t o bur y a chi l d. And t he

par t i cul ar l y t r agi c ci r cumst ances sur r oundi ng si xt een- year - ol d

Ant hony' s death make thi s l oss even mor e devast at i ng f or hi s

mother . However , we are dut y- bound t o appl y t he l aw t o t he r ecor d

f act s, whi ch i n t hi s case do not suppor t McGr at h' s t heor y of

r ecover y.

Because the r ecord does not est abl i sh a Four t h Amendment

vi ol at i on, and i n t he al t er nat i ve, Def endant s woul d be ent i t l ed t o

-23-


24/24

qual i f i ed i mmuni t y, we af f i r mt he di st r i ct cour t ' s ent r y of summar y

j udgment i n Def endant s' f avor .

-24-

mcgrath v. tavares, 1st cir. (2014)

Documents