Qualified Immunity for Law Enforcement Facing Furtive Movements: Objective Reasonableness Clarified in Benton v. Layton

Introduction

In LaToya Benton v. Seth Layton, 23-1680 (4th Cir. June 3, 2025), the Fourth Circuit addressed whether two Virginia State Troopers, accused of using excessive force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state‐law torts, were entitled to qualified immunity after fatally shooting an 18-year-old driver, Xzavier Hill. Hill’s estate, administered by his mother LaToya Benton, alleged that the troopers shot him while he was trapped in his vehicle, posed no imminent threat, and had informed them his car door was jammed. The district court granted summary judgment for the troopers, concluding (1) their use of force was objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and Graham v. Connor, and (2) no binding Supreme Court or Fourth Circuit precedent clearly established that their conduct was unconstitutional. Benton appealed, and the Fourth Circuit affirmed.

Summary of the Judgment

The Fourth Circuit applied de novo review to the district court’s grant of summary judgment and qualified immunity.
Under the Fourth Amendment’s “objective reasonableness” standard (Graham factors), the panel found:
- Severity of the crime: Hill’s high-speed, lane-swerving flight from police justified a felony eluding signal charge.
- Immediate threat: After multiple clear commands to show his hands, Hill made “furtive movements” toward the console/passenger side, reasonably suggesting he might reach for a weapon.
- Resistance/flight: Hill continued to evade, made a U-turn across lanes, and only “stopped” when his vehicle became immobilized.
No Fourth Circuit or Supreme Court decision “beyond debate” clearly proscribed the troopers’ conduct. Cases permitting deadly force in the face of noncompliance and furtive movement—Slattery v. Rizzo, Elliott v. Leavitt, Anderson v. Russell—provided no rule contrary to the troopers’ actions.
Accordingly, the troopers were shielded by qualified immunity, and both federal and parallel state tort claims failed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Graham v. Connor (1989): Established the Fourth Amendment “objective reasonableness” test for excessive force, focusing on (1) severity of the crime, (2) immediate threat, and (3) resisting/arresting flight.
Slattery v. Rizzo (4th Cir. 1991): Upheld deadly force where a suspect partially concealed an object after disobeying commands.
Elliott v. Leavitt (4th Cir. 1996): Qualified immunity applied when an arrestee, ordered to drop a handgun, kept his finger on the trigger.
Anderson v. Russell (4th Cir. 2001): Officer’s split‐second decision to shoot was reasonable where a suspect ignored orders to raise his hands and made a downward movement towards a suspected weapon.
Case Law on Qualified Immunity: Mullenix v. Luna, Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, Wesby, Pearson v. Callahan provided the two‐prong framework—(1) constitutional violation, (2) clearly established law.

Legal Reasoning

The court first asked whether the troopers’ use of deadly force was objectively reasonable under Graham. Viewing dash-cam video in the light most favorable to Hill’s estate, the panel identified three key observations:

Hill’s initial high-speed, zig-zag driving and failure to stop upon seeing blue lights gave officers probable cause for felony eluding.
After coming to rest, Hill was commanded multiple times to show his hands; he withdrew his arm and made movements toward the console or passenger side in violation of those commands, reasonably raising the specter of a firearm—even if none was visible on camera.
Hill continued to evade or refuse commands, indicating active resistance and flight.

The Fourth Circuit held that, based on these circumstances, a reasonable officer could believe Hill posed an imminent threat and that deadly force was justified.

Second, the court turned to whether clearly established law put the troopers on notice that shooting Hill under these facts was unconstitutional. No Supreme Court or Fourth Circuit opinion had unmistakably held that noncompliant furtive movements by a suspect trapped in his car triggered constitutional protections against deadly force. Absent a case “directly on point,” the troopers were entitled to immunity.

Impact

This decision highlights several important developments in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence:

It reaffirms that “furtive movement” cases, even without visible weapons, can justify deadly force when officers give clear commands and reasonably perceive a threat.
It underscores the rigorous two‐prong qualified immunity test: first, analyze reasonableness under Graham; second, demand precedent placing the constitutional rule “beyond debate.”
It signals to lower courts and officers that dash-cam evidence of noncompliance plus movement toward concealed areas of a vehicle remains a critical factor in reasonableness determinations.
It may constrain future plaintiffs in § 1983 excessive‐force suits by requiring highly specific prior cases delineating unlawful uses of force in factually similar furtive‐movement scenarios.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Qualified Immunity: A legal doctrine shielding government officials from liability unless they violate “clearly established” constitutional rights.
Objective Reasonableness (Graham Test): An inquiry under the Fourth Amendment assessing (1) crime severity, (2) immediate threat to officers or others, and (3) suspect’s resistance or flight.
Furtive Movements: Actions by a suspect—after law enforcement’s clear commands—that reasonably appear to conceal or draw a weapon.
Clearly Established Law: Legal precedent so definitive that every reasonable officer would know the challenged conduct is unlawful in the same factual context.

Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit’s decision in Benton v. Layton affirms that officers who face a fleeing driver, issue clear commands, and observe noncompliant, potentially weapon‐seeking movements are entitled to qualified immunity if no binding precedent clearly forbade their actions. By meticulously applying Graham’s “objective reasonableness” standard and the qualified immunity framework, the court has further delineated the boundary between justified and excessive force in situations involving dash-cam evidence and furtive movements. This ruling will guide officers, litigants, and lower courts in assessing split-second use-of-force decisions for years to come.