court says cops dont have to be responsible for their actions Original Article High court twice gives police benefit of doubt David G. Savage Los Angeles Times Dec. 14, 2004 12:00 AM WASHINGTON - In a pair of victories for law enforcement, the Supreme Court on Monday made it harder to sue police for wrongly shooting a fleeing suspect or for arresting a motorist on false charges. In both instances, the justices said the courts should give police officers the benefit of the doubt and not allow them to be sued for doing their jobs. Monday's decisions reversed rulings of the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that the police violated the rights of the suspects by subjecting them to an "unreasonable seizure." Nearly 20 years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that police may not use "deadly force" to stop a fleeing felon, except when the officer has good reason to believe "the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others." Applying that rule has proven to be difficult, for police and courts. The Washington state case of Brosseau vs. Haugen fell along what the Supreme Court called "the hazy border between excessive and acceptable force." Because it was not a clear-cut case of a wrongful shooting, the justices in an 8-1 decision ruled for the police officer and threw out the lawsuit against her. On Feb. 21, 1999, Officer Rochelle Brosseau of Puyallup, Wash., near Tacoma, went to a home to arrest Kenneth Haugen, who was accused of selling drugs and stealing tools from a co-worker. Haugen hopped into his Jeep and fumbled with the keys. Brosseau ordered him to stop, drew her gun and smashed a hole in a window. But when Haugen began to pull away, Brosseau shot him, hitting him under an arm. Though he sped from the driveway, he only got half a block, then pulled off the road and passed out. He sued the officer, alleging that the shooting was "unreasonable seizure" in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The federal courts have been split over whether a jury should hear Haugen's lawsuit. A federal judge in Washington dismissed his claim, but the 9th Circuit revived it two years ago in a 2-1 ruling and said a jury should decide whether the shooting was an unreasonable use of force. Judge William Fletcher pointed out that Haugen did not have a gun and was not charged with a violent crime, and there was no evidence that his flight presented a threat to others. "We reject an approach that would allow officers to shoot a suspect simply because he is fleeing, or is about to flee," he said. Judge Stephen Reinhardt joined him. In dissent, Judge Ronald Gould said "the majority's sweeping position ... promises an easy escape to any felon willing to threaten innocent lives by driving recklessly." Five appellate judges who disagreed with the panel's decision urged the full 9th Circuit to reconsider the ruling. When it did not, lawyers for Brosseau appealed to the Supreme Court. The attorneys general in 16 states and several police groups urged the court to reverse the 9th Circuit, which includes Arizona. In an unsigned opinion Monday, the Supreme Court justices threw out Haugen's suit and said the officer deserved to be shielded, even if her actions may have been incorrect. "Quality immunity shields an officer from suit when she makes a decision that, even if constitutionally deficient, reasonably misapprehends the law governing the circumstances she confronted," the court wrote. Brousseau saw Haugen as "a disturbed felon.