Permissible Use of Deadly Force Against a Threatening Vehicle

Introduction

In Jessica Servais v. John Caccia, 23-2565 (3d Cir. May 13, 2025), the Third Circuit addressed whether a law enforcement officer’s use of deadly force against a vehicle—driven by Jacob Servais toward the officer—violated the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on excessive force. The appellant, Servais’s mother and administrator of his estate (the “Estate”), argued that Detective John Caccia’s decision to shoot through the windshield was unreasonable. The District Court had granted summary judgment for Caccia, and the Third Circuit affirmed.

Summary of the Judgment

While effectuating the arrest of a suspect, officers surrounded a parked sedan driven by Servais. After failing to comply with commands, Servais first bumped an unmarked police SUV and, when it reversed, accelerated toward Detective Caccia, who stood near the vehicle’s front passenger side. Fearing imminent death or serious injury, Caccia fired three shots through the windshield, killing Servais. The District Court granted summary judgment, concluding no Fourth Amendment violation. The Third Circuit, applying de novo review, agreed that deadly force was reasonable under the totality of circumstances and affirmed the judgment.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989): Established the “objective reasonableness” standard for excessive-force claims, focusing on facts “from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene.”
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985): Held that deadly force is a “seizure” under the Fourth Amendment and may not be used unless the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury.
Jefferson v. Lias, 21 F.4th 74 (3d Cir. 2021) & Rush v. City of Philadelphia, 78 F.4th 610 (3d Cir. 2023): Recognized that shooting at a fleeing vehicle is presumptively unreasonable, but permissible if the vehicle poses an imminent threat of death or serious harm.
Johnson v. City of Philadelphia, 837 F.3d 343 (3d Cir. 2016) & Bland v. City of Newark, 900 F.3d 77 (3d Cir. 2018): Clarified that when a vehicle is used as a weapon against officers or others, deadly force can be justified.
Abraham v. Raso, 183 F.3d 279 (3d Cir. 1999): Distinguished because it turned on material fact disputes about the officer’s position relative to the vehicle, a situation not present here.
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) & Scott v. Henrich, 39 F.3d 912 (9th Cir. 1994): Emphasized that purely self-serving testimony may be discounted in summary judgment when contradicted by objective evidence.

Legal Reasoning

The court applied the three Graham factors—severity of the crime, immediate threat to safety, and active resistance or flight. It found:

Servais had disregarded repeated commands to surrender, first impacting Officer Bohn’s vehicle.
He then accelerated toward Caccia, placing the officer in imminent peril of death or grievous injury.
No genuine dispute of material fact existed about whether Caccia stood in the path of the vehicle; objectively, he faced mortal risk.

The court rejected the Estate’s argument that Caccia had viable alternatives (e.g., stepping aside), noting there was no evidence of safe egress in a confined parking scenario. It further declined to apply Abraham’s fact-intensive approach, finding no contradictory evidence to create a triable issue.

Impact

This decision reinforces that:

Deadly force against a moving vehicle is not per se unreasonable if the vehicle is used as a deadly weapon and the officer reasonably perceives an imminent threat.
Summary judgment is appropriate where no material fact dispute exists about threat and positioning.
Future Fourth Amendment challenges must focus on disputing objective evidence of imminent risk, not solely on policy violations or expert testimony about best practices.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Objective Reasonableness: Assessment of an officer’s use of force based on what a reasonable officer would have done under similar circumstances, without hindsight bias.
Summary Judgment: A procedural tool by which a court decides a case without a trial if there is no genuine dispute of material fact requiring a jury’s resolution.
Excessive Force (Fourth Amendment): The use of force by law enforcement that is more than reasonably necessary to effect a lawful seizure of a person.

Conclusion

Jessica Servais v. John Caccia establishes that an officer may lawfully employ deadly force against a vehicle when it is reasonably perceived as a weapon inflicting imminent threat. By affirming the summary judgment, the Third Circuit underscores the primacy of objective facts—“is there a genuine dispute?”—over procedural assertions of alternative tactics. This decision will guide lower courts in evaluating excessive-force claims involving moving vehicles and clarifies the narrow circumstances under which deadly force is constitutionally permissible.