In a case with serious implications for law enforcement, the eastern district of Pennsylvania court has held that the need for a foot pursuit policy may be so obvious as to subject a department without one to Monell liability.

The plaintiff mother, individually and as the Administratrix of her deceased son's estate, sued the defendants, a police officer, a police commissioner and a city, asserting excessive force claims under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983and U.S. Const. amend. IV, as well as state law claims, stemming from the shooting death of her son by the officer. The defendants moved for summary judgment on all counts. The officer pursued the son on foot after he ran when the officer requested that the son show identification. The officer alleged that he thought the son was armed because he reached into his waistband and was holding a metallic object later determined to be a cell phone. The court held that (1) the excessive force claim against the officer was viable because there existed a genuine dispute over the reasonableness of the officer's belief in the need to use deadly force where the mother presented testimony stating the son did nothing up until the time he was shot, the officer presented conflicting testimony, and another officer who arrived on the scene gave conflicting accounts as to what he saw; (2) the § 1983 claims against the city were viable as the mother offered evidence to show that the city was deliberately indifferent to alleged constitutional violations resulting from its failure to implement foot pursuit and related policies, as recommended in an official report; and (3) the state law claims against the commissioner failed under the immunity provided by the Pennsylvania Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act because his actions were within the scope of his duties. The Police Department was on notice of the potential Monell claim because a report, some years earlier, informed the command staff that foot pursuits were likely to result in constitutional violations. The court went further, however, holding that foot pursuits are hardly a rare occurrence, such that the need for a policy may well have been obvious.

Case Law Alert - 1st Qtr 2010