Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765 (2014), is a United States Supreme Court case involving the use of force by police officers during high-speed car chases.

The officers moved for summary judgment, arguing they were entitled to qualified immunity because their actions did not violate law that was clearly established at the time of the car chase.

[2] The Court held in Scott v. Harris (2007) that a "police officer's attempt to terminate a dangerous high-speed car chase that threatens the lives of innocent bystanders does not violate the Fourth Amendment, even when it places the fleeing motorist at risk of serious injury or death.

In general, police officers are protected from individual liability from these claims by the qualified immunity doctrine, which prevents government officials, including police officers, from being held individually liable for federal civil rights violations unless their conduct violated clearly established law at the time in question.

[5] Around midnight on July 18, 2004, Lieutenant Joseph Forthman of the West Memphis, Arkansas, Police Department pulled over a white Honda Accord driven by Donald Rickard because the car had only one working headlight.

[6] The lieutenant, later joined by other officers, pursued Rickard in a high-speed car chase down Interstate 40 that reached speeds beyond 100 miles (160 km) per hour.

[20] Alito reaffirmed the Court's decisions in Graham v. Connor and Tennessee v. Garner that excessive force claims against law enforcement officers are evaluated under the "objective reasonableness" standard of the Fourth Amendment, which "requires analyzing the totality of the circumstances".

[24] Finally, Alito wrote that even if the officers' conduct had violated the Fourth Amendment, they "would still be entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity".

[25] In the case of Plumhoff, Alito wrote that the Court's decision in Brosseau v. Haugen, in which the Court found reasonable the conduct of a police officer who fired shots at a fleeing vehicle, "squarely demonstrates that no clearly established law precluded petitioners' conduct at the time in question".

According to Ross, "lower courts are reminded of how to assess issues pertaining to qualified immunity, particularly in use of force cases".

"[27] During the course of the Court's review of the case, the justices watched audiovisual recordings of the car chase that led to Rickard's death.

In an analysis published in the Fordham Law Review, Denise K. Barry compared Plumhoff to the case Tolan v. Cotton (2014), in which the Supreme Court summarily vacated a motion which granted summary judgment to a police officer on the basis of qualified immunity.

[28] In his analysis of Plumhoff, Ross also commented that police are reminded of the Court's principles regarding the use of deadly force in accordance with Graham, especially as it pertains to fleeing motorists.

[29] Finally, Ross wrote, "Police administrators are encouraged to review and revise their current use of force and pursuit policies consistent with this decision.

"[29] Ross recommended that "administrators should provide training to their officers on use of force legal issues and principles that emerge from Rickard, Graham, Scott, and Brosseau".

[33] Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the University of California, Irvine School of Law, wrote an opinion piece published in The New York Times, in which he described the Court's decision as "deeply disturbing", arguing that there are alternatives to shooting at fleeing vehicles, such as "shooting out the car’s tires" or "taking the license plate number and tracking the driver down later".

[34] In the article, Chemerinsky also opposed the doctrine of qualified immunity, arguing that it poses an unreasonable burden for individuals alleging violations of constitutional rights.

[34] In a blog post published in The Hill, Jonathan R. Nash, a professor of law at Emory University School of Law, argued that the Court's decision in Plumhoff was inconsistent with the precedent it set in Scott, commenting that the Court "jettisoned Scott's careful balancing in favor of an approach designed to give the police substantial leeway in terminating chases".

[35] In a post published in the blog Crimes and Consequences, Kent Scheidegger commented that in light of Scott, "it is clear enough that there was no Fourth Amendment violation on the straight merits of the case, and it is virtually beyond dispute that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity".

[36] On that basis, Scheidegger speculated that the reason Plumhoff was distributed for conference numerous times was because the Court was considering reversing the Sixth Circuit as a summary disposition.