Whether an accelerating fleeing driver's sudden turn deprives a threatened shooting officer of qualified-immunity

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Fearing for his own safety and that of his ridealong, an officer fired several shots at a fleeing-felon driver as he drove toward and swiped the officer’s cruiser. Unfortunately, one of the officer’s shots unintentionally hit and killed a passenger in the fleeing car. The driver was convicted for the homicide, yet the victim-passenger’s brother brought this § 1983 action against the officer. The district court granted summary judgment, finding the officer was entitled to qualified immunity and that his use of force was reasonable under the circumstances. The Ninth Circuit reversed, once again ignoring this Court’s precedent and instructions, and instead defining “clearly established law” at an impermissibly high level of generality. The Ninth Circuit also further entrenched a split among the courts of appeals by failing to address whether the victim-passenger was “seized” as a matter of law to support a claim under the Fourth Amendment. The questions presented are: 1. Whether an accelerating fleeing driver’s sudden turn deprives a threatened shooting officer of qualified immunity? 2. Whether an unintended victim-passenger of a fleeing vehicle is “seized” for purposes of the Fourth Amendment?