Unlawful Use of Deadly Force on an Unarmed Fleeing Suspect: Limits on Qualified Immunity in Wright v. Warren

Introduction

Donald Clark Wright III v. Brandon Warren presents a Fourth Amendment challenge to a Christmas Eve 2019 traffic stop that escalated into a foot chase and a single gunshot. Deputy Brandon Warren of the Clayton County Sheriff’s Office pulled over Wright after discovering outstanding arrest warrants. When Wright drove off and crashed his truck, the unarmed suspect fled on foot into a residential area. Warren fired one shot, striking Wright in the buttocks. Wright sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging excessive force. The district court denied qualified immunity; on interlocutory appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. This decision clarifies the limits on an officer’s ability to use deadly force against a non-threatening, unarmed, fleeing suspect.

Summary of the Judgment

The Eleventh Circuit, sitting en banc, reviewed de novo the denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity. It assumed the facts in Wright’s favor: Wright was unarmed, held only a phone and earbuds, and ran away from Warren—who shouted commands but issued no warning before firing. Applying Graham v. Connor’s “objective reasonableness” standard and Garner’s prohibition on shooting a fleeing, unarmed suspect, the court concluded (1) the use of deadly force was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment and (2) clearly established law put any reasonable officer on notice that this conduct was unconstitutional. It therefore affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

• Tennessee v. Garner (471 U.S. 1 (1985)) – Deadly force may not be used against a nonviolent, fleeing suspect who does not pose an immediate threat.
• Graham v. Connor (490 U.S. 386 (1989)) – Excessive-force claims are governed by an “objective reasonableness” standard.
• Vaughan v. Cox (343 F.3d 1323 (11th Cir. 2003)) – Sets out the three-part test (threat, necessity, warning) for deadly-force cases.
• Penley v. Eslinger (605 F.3d 843 (11th Cir. 2010)) – Emphasizes that the Graham factors are non-exhaustive and fact-bound.
• Salvato v. Miley (790 F.3d 1286 (11th Cir. 2015)) – Confirms that an officer’s remote speculation about future danger cannot justify deadly force.
• Mercado v. City of Orlando (407 F.3d 1152 (11th Cir. 2005)) – Establishes that a suspect’s failure to comply with orders, absent an immediate threat, does not permit deadly force.

2. Legal Reasoning

The opinion proceeds in two steps under qualified-immunity doctrine:

1. Violation of a Constitutional Right. The Fourth Amendment forbids “unreasonable seizures,” including excessive uses of force during an arrest. Under Graham, the court weighs the severity of the crime, the immediate threat to officers or others, and whether a warning was given. Here, Wright was unarmed, fleeing with his back turned, and never posed an immediate danger, rendering the shot objectively unreasonable.
2. Clearly Established Law. An officer is entitled to qualified immunity only if existing precedent gives “fair warning” that the conduct was unlawful. Garner had already held—over three decades earlier—that shooting a nonviolent, fleeing suspect is unconstitutional. No reasonable officer in December 2019 could misunderstand this principle.

3. Impact

This decision reinforces and extends the bright-line rule against shooting an unarmed person who is running away. It underscores:

• The limited scope of qualified immunity when an officer violates a well-settled constitutional rule.
• The primacy of Garner’s prohibition on deadly force absent an immediate threat.
• The obligation of officers to issue warnings where feasible, even when they suspect a weapon.

Future courts will cite Wright v. Warren when assessing cases in which officers shoot fleeing suspects whom they reasonably should know present no immediate danger.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Qualified Immunity: A doctrine protecting government officials from civil liability unless they violate a constitutional right that was “clearly established” at the time.
• Objective Reasonableness: The Fourth Amendment standard for evaluating force, judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, without hindsight.
• Fourth Amendment Seizure: Occurs when an officer uses force to restrain or attempt to restrain a person’s freedom of movement.
• Clearly Established Law: Case law must put officers on “fair warning” that their specific conduct is unlawful.

Conclusion

Wright v. Warren crystallizes the principle that deadly force against an unarmed, non-threatening, fleeing suspect violates the Fourth Amendment and bars qualified immunity when clearly established by precedent. Officers must realistically assess the immediacy of any threat, issue warnings when feasible, and recognize that shooting a retreating suspect—no matter the backdrop of prior offenses or high-speed chase— is objectively unreasonable. This ruling will guide law enforcement practices and shape future excessive-force litigation in the Eleventh Circuit and beyond.