Mullenix v. Luna

Last updated
Mullenix v. Luna
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Decided November 9, 2015
Full case nameChadrin Lee Mullenix v. Beatrice Luna, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Israel Leija, Jr., et al.
Docket no. 14-1143
Citations577 U.S. ___ ( more )
136 S. Ct. 305; 193 L. Ed. 2d 255; 2015 U.S. LEXIS 7160
Case history
PriorOn Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
ProceduralSummary judgment denied, 2013 WL 4017124 (N.D. Tex., Aug. 7, 2013); aff'd, 773 F. 3d 712 (5th Cir. 2014); opinion withdrawn, substituted opinion at 777 F. 3d 221 (5th Cir. 2014); rehearing en banc denied, 77 F. 3d 221 (2014)
Holding
A police officer who shot and killed a fleeing suspect during a police pursuit was entitled to qualified immunity because existing precedent did not establish "beyond debate" that the officer's actions were objectively unreasonable.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Case opinions
Per curiam
ConcurrenceScalia (in judgment)
DissentSotomayor
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. IV

Mullenix v. Luna, 577 U.S. ___ (2015), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a police officer who shot a suspect during a police pursuit was entitled to qualified immunity. [1] In a per curiam opinion, the Court held that prior precedent did not establish "beyond debate" that the officer's actions were objectively unreasonable. [2]

Contents

Background

Pursuit and death of Israel Leija, Jr.

On March 23, 2010, officers in the Tulia, Texas Police Department engaged Israel Leija, Jr. in a high-speed pursuit where Leija's vehicle reached speeds between 85 and 110 miles per hour. [3] During the pursuit, Leija made two telephone calls to the Tulia, Texas police dispatcher stating that he had a gun and that he would shoot officers if they did not abandon the pursuit. [3] The dispatcher relayed these calls to pursuing officers, as well as an additional report that Leija may have been intoxicated. [3] Texas Department of Public Safety trooper Chadrin Mullenix responded to the pursuit and positioned himself on an overpass above the freeway on which Leija was traveling. [4] Despite direct orders not to fire from the overpass, Mullenix fired six shots in the direction of Leija's vehicle. [4] Four of those shots struck and killed Leija. [5]

Trial and appeal to Fifth Circuit

Leija's family sued Mullenix under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that Mullenix conducted an unconstitutional seizure by using excessive force against Leija. [6] Mullenix filed a motion for summary judgment in which he argued that he was entitled to qualified immunity. [6] The district court denied Mullenix's motion, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling. [7] The Fifth Circuit held that the "immediacy of the risk posed by Leija is a disputed fact that a reasonable jury could find either in the plaintiffs’ favor or in the officer's favor, precluding us from concluding that Mullenix acted objectively reasonably as a matter of law". [8] Mullenix then petitioned the Fifth Circuit for rehearing en banc, but the court reaffirmed the denial of qualified immunity. [9] The Fifth Circuit concluded that "the law was clearly established such that a reasonable officer would have known that the use of deadly force, absent a sufficiently substantial and immediate threat, violated the Fourth Amendment". [10]

Opinion of the Court

On November 9, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a per curiam opinion that addressed only the qualified immunity question; the Court did not address whether Mullenix's actions violated the Fourth Amendment. [11] The Court began its analysis by noting that police officers are entitled to qualified immunity in suits filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as long as the officer's conduct does not violate "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known". [12] The Court explained that there need not be "a case directly on point, but existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate". [13] Applying these principles to the facts of this case, the Court held that prior precedent did not establish "beyond debate" that Mullenix's actions were objectively unreasonable. [14] Consequently, the Court reversed the Fifth Circuit's determination that Mullenix was not entitled to qualified immunity. [15]

Concurring and dissenting opinions

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment; he argued that Mullenix did not actually apply deadly force in this case. [16] Because Mullenix intended only to stop Leija's car by destroying its engine, the gunshots were not "deadly force" because they were not "applied with the object of harming the body of the felon". [17] Justice Scalia claimed, "It does not assist analysis to refer to all use of force that happens to kill the arrestee as the application of deadly force". [16] Additionally, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissenting opinion in which she argued that Mullenix was not entitled to qualified immunity because "it was clearly established under the Fourth Amendment that an officer in Mullenix’s position should not have fired the shots". [18] She argued, "It is clearly established that there must be some governmental interest that necessitates deadly force" and that in this case, "neither petitioner nor the majority can point to any possible marginal gain in shooting at the car over" other nonlethal alternatives. [19] She wrote, "[b]y sanctioning a 'shoot first, think later' approach to policing, the Court renders the protections of the Fourth Amendment hollow". [20]

See also

Related Research Articles

In the United States, qualified immunity is a legal principle that grants government officials performing discretionary (optional) functions immunity from lawsuits for damages unless the plaintiff shows that the official violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known". It is a form of sovereign immunity less strict than absolute immunity that is intended to protect officials who "make reasonable but mistaken judgments about open legal questions", extending to "all [officials] but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law". Qualified immunity applies only to government officials in civil litigation, and does not protect the government itself from suits arising from officials' actions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2004 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down six per curiam opinions during its 2004 term, which began October 4, 2004 and concluded October 3, 2005.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2006 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down eight per curiam opinions during its 2006 term, which began October 2, 2006 and concluded September 30, 2007.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2010 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down ten per curiam opinions during its 2010 term, which began October 4, 2010 and concluded October 1, 2011.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2011 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down fourteen per curiam opinions during its 2011 term, which began October 3, 2011 and concluded September 30, 2012.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2013 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down eight per curiam opinions during its 2013 term, which began October 7, 2013 and concluded October 5, 2014.

United States v. Kebodeaux, 570 U.S. 387 (2013), was a recent case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Sex Offender Notification and Registration Act (SORNA) was constitutional under the Necessary and Proper Clause.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2014 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down eight per curiam opinions during its 2014 term, which began October 6, 2014 and concluded October 4, 2015.

Kerry v. Din, 576 U.S. 86 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court analyzed whether there is a constitutional right to live in the United States with one's spouse and whether procedural due process requires consular officials to give notice of reasons for denying a visa application. In Justice Anthony Kennedy's concurring opinion, the controlling opinion in this case, he wrote that notice requirements “[do] not apply when, as in this case, a visa application is denied due to terrorism or national security concerns.” Because the consular officials satisfied notice requirements, there was no need for the Court to address the constitutional question about the right to live with one's spouse.

Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393 (2014), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court clarified when police officers may make arrests or conduct temporary detentions based on information provided by anonymous tips. In 2008, police in California received a 911 call that a pickup truck was driving recklessly along a rural highway. Officers spotted a truck matching the description provided in the 911 call and followed the truck for five minutes, but did not observe any suspicious behavior. Nevertheless, officers conducted a traffic stop and discovered 30 pounds (14 kg) of marijuana in the truck. At trial, the occupants of the car argued that the traffic stop violated the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, because the tip was unreliable, and officers did not personally observe criminal activity. Writing for a majority of the Court, Justice Clarence Thomas held that the 911 call was reliable, and that officers need not personally observe criminal activity when acting upon information provided by an anonymous 911 call.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2015 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down eighteen per curiam opinions during its 2015 term, which began October 5, 2015 and concluded October 2, 2016.

Davis v. Ayala, 576 U.S. 257 (2015), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a death sentence of a Hispanic defendant despite the fact that all Blacks and Hispanics were rejected from the jury during the defendant's trial. The case involved a habeas corpus petition submitted by Hector Ayala, who was arrested and tried in the late 1980s for the alleged murder of three individuals during an attempted robbery of an automobile body shop in San Diego, California in April 1985. At trial, the prosecution used peremptory challenges to strike all Black and Hispanic jurors who were available for jury service. The trial court judge allowed the prosecution to explain the basis for the peremptory challenges outside the presence of Ayala's counsel, "so as not to disclose trial strategy". Ayala was ultimately sentenced to death, but he filed several appeals challenging the constitutionality of the trial court's decision to exclude his counsel from the hearings.

Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81 (2015), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States clarified procedures for removing a class action lawsuit from state court to federal court. The case involved a dispute about revenue from oil and gas leases in which the defendant filed a motion to remove the case from a state court in Kansas to the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. However, the plaintiff argued that the defendant's motion was defective because the defendant's notice of removal did not include evidence demonstrating that the amount in controversy satisfied the jurisdictional threshold. The United States District Court for the District of Kansas ultimately ruled the case should be returned to the state court, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit declined to review the district court's decision.

Kansas v. Carr, 577 U.S. ___ (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States clarified several procedures for sentencing defendants in capital cases. Specifically, the Court held that judges are not required to affirmatively instruct juries about the burden of proof for establishing mitigating evidence, and that joint trials of capital defendants "are often preferable when the joined defendants’ criminal conduct arises out of a single chain of events". This case included the last majority opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia before his death in February 2016.

Luis v. United States, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the pre-trial restraint of assets needed to retain a defendant's counsel of choice when those assets have not been used in conjunction with criminal activity.

Ocasio v. United States, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified whether the Hobbs Act's definition of conspiracy to commit extortion only includes attempts to acquire property from someone who is not a member of the conspiracy. The case arose when Samuel Ocasio, a former Baltimore, Maryland police officer, was indicted for participating in a kickback scheme with an automobile repair shop where officers would refer drivers of damaged vehicles to the shop in exchange for cash payments. Ocasio argued that he should not be found guilty of conspiring to commit extortion because the only property that was exchanged in the scheme was transferred from one member of the conspiracy to another, and an individual cannot be found guilty of conspiring to extort a co-conspirator.

Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States on the status of administrative law judges of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Court held that they are considered inferior officers of the United States and so are subject to the Appointments Clause and must be appointed through the President or other delegated officer of the United States, rather than hired. As "inferior" officers, their appointments are not subject to the Senate's advice and consent role.

Nieves v. Bartlett, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), was a civil rights case in which the Supreme Court of the United States decided that probable cause should generally defeat a retaliatory arrest claim brought under the First Amendment, unless officers under the circumstances would typically exercise their discretion not to make an arrest.

Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765 (2014), is a United States Supreme Court case involving the use of force by police officers during high-speed car chases. After first holding that it had jurisdiction to hear the case, the Court held that the conduct of the police officers involved in the case did not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2021 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down eight per curiam opinions during its 2021 term, which began October 4, 2021 and concluded October 2, 2022.

References

  1. Mullenix v. Luna,No. 14–1143 , 577 U.S. ___, slip op. at 12 (2015) (per curiam).
  2. Mullenix, slip op. at 9 (per curiam) (citing Ashcroft v. al-Kidd , 563 U.S. 731, 741 (2011).
  3. 1 2 3 Mullenix, slip op. at 1 (per curiam).
  4. 1 2 Mullenix, slip op. at 2 (per curiam).
  5. Mullenix, slip op. at 2-3 (per curiam).
  6. 1 2 Mullenix, slip op. at 3 (per curiam).
  7. Mullenix, slip op. at 3 (per curiam) (citing Luna v. Mullenix, 765 F.3d 531 (2014)).
  8. Mullenix, slip op. at 3 (per curiam) (citing Luna v. Mullenix, 765 F.3d at 538).
  9. Mullenix, slip op. at 4 (per curiam) (citing Luna v. Mullenix, 777 F.3d 221 (2014)).
  10. Mullenix, slip op. at 4 (per curiam) (citing Luna v. Mullenix, 773 F.3d 712, 725 (2014)).
  11. Mullenix, slip op. at 4 (per curiam).
  12. Mullenix, slip op. at 4 (per curiam) (citing Pearson v. Callahan , 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009)).
  13. Mullenix, slip op. at 5 (per curiam) (citing Ashcroft v. al-Kidd , 563 U.S. 731, 741 (2011).
  14. Mullenix, slip op. at 9 (per curiam).
  15. Mullenix, slip op. at 12 (per curiam).
  16. 1 2 Mullenix, slip op. at 1 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment).
  17. Mullenix, slip op. at 1-2 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment).
  18. Mullenix, slip op. at 1 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting).
  19. Mullenix, slip op. at 4-5 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting).
  20. Mullenix, slip op. at 7 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting).