Does the Fourth Amendment allow police to use deadly force to prevent the escape of a joyriding motorcyclist?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Does the Fourth Amendment entitle police to seize all speeding motorists by shooting them, regardless of the circumstances and independently of any demonstrable lethal threat beyond the mere fact they are speeding? More specifically, does the Fourth Amendment allow police to use deadly force to prevent the escape of a joyriding motorcyclist who has outrun police cars and avoided roadblocks rather than submitting to a traffic stop, but who has also maintained steady control of his bike without posing an immediate danger to any identifiable persons in his path? 2. Should the Court clarify Saucier v. Katz, 533 US. 194 (2001) (as modified by Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009)) to provide needed guidance on how courts should exercise their discretion in determining which question to address first in conducting the two-pronged qualified immunity inquiry? 3. Since the Fourth Amendment requires that the use of force be objectively reasonable from the standpoint of a reasonable police officer at the scene — not just subjectively reasonable in the mind of the defendant officer — does Rule 56 permit a court to disregard the plaintiff’s testimony about the lack of objective reasonableness on the defendant’s motion for summary judgment?