Police Who Shot at Backfiring Van Granted Immunity in Suit

“The [squad] car pulls behind Ransom’s van, which has on its hazard lights. Only seconds later, the van backfires. (If the viewer watches closely, sparks can be seen shooting out from the van’s tailpipe; the tailpipe visibly shakes as it fires.) Just after the backfire, the driver’s-side door of the van opens. Officer Phillips yells, ‘Get back in the car.’ Ransom appears not to hear Officer Phillips and steps out of the van. As soon as he does, the two officers fire a total of eight shots. Ransom does not react as if he has been hit by any shot, nor does he appear to notice that the officers have fired at him. Instead, he briefly looks around and then down at the tailpipe of the van, shakes his head side-to-side, and turns and walks to the front of the van.”

Ransom filed suit in December 2012 against the officers and detectives who detained him. The complaint alleged the police used excessive force, unreasonably seized him and held him without probable cause. A trial judge, Fernando Gaitan Jr., ruled for Ransom. Gaitan said “the court finds that there is a question of fact as to whether plaintiff was ‘seized’ by the bullets and the officer’s actions.”

The appeals court on Monday ordered the trial judge to enter judgment in favor of the police and to dismiss the complaint.

The police said they thought they were caught in an ambush, according to the Eighth Circuit’s recounting of the events. The appeals panel said the police did not act unreasonably given the circumstances.

Ransom, the court noted, “exited his van and appeared to the officers to disregard their order to get back in the car.” The court concluded that any seizure and use of force was justified.

‘Very fortunate’ the officers missed

“It is very fortunate that the officers missed with their shots. This would be a tragic case if Ransom, who by all means was abiding by the law, had been injured or killed,” the appeals panel wrote. “Though Ransom had done nothing wrong, and viewing the scene in his favor, the officers’ fear of harm was reasonable, and the potential seizure from their gunshots did not violate Ransom’s Fourth Amendment rights.”

Ransom’s lawyer in the Eighth Circuit, John Kurtz of Hubbard & Kurtz, didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. “Examination of the videotape demonstrates an absence of any ‘threat of serious physical harm to the officer,’ ” Kurtz wrote in court papers.

Benjamin Cox, the Missouri assistant attorney general who represented the police officers, declined to comment. “It is undisputed that the backfire sounded like a gunshot. It is undisputed that the backfire could be easily mistaken for a gunshot,” Cox said in his court papers in the Eighth Circuit.

Circuit Judge Jane Kelly agreed with one part of the ruling—that the officers are entitled to immunity. Kelly, however, wrote a dissent that said she would find the detectives who detained Ransom for questioning—transporting him to a police station—are liable for constitutional violations for holding him without probable cause.

Kelly acknowledged that her conclusion leads to a peculiar result: “The officers who open-fired on an unarmed man are given immunity; yet the detectives who transported the same unarmed man, without restraint, to a police station to ask him questions and then took him home would receive no immunity.”