Jeffery Payne sued Sergeant Joshua Moser of the Fairfax County Police Department, alleging excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment and gross negligence under Virginia state law. The incident began when police arranged a controlled drug buy in a shopping complex parking lot. When Payne arrived and became suspicious, he attempted to drive away. Sergeant Moser directed other detectives to stop him using unmarked vehicles. The detectives first performed a tactical vehicle intercept, ramming Payne's car with a pickup truck, followed by a precision immobilization technique (PIT) maneuver that spun Payne's vehicle. After the car stopped, the detectives blocked Payne in. Sergeant Moser then shot Payne through the back window, believing Payne was reaching for a gun. Payne was unarmed. The district court granted summary judgment to the Sergeant, concluding that the force used was objectively reasonable as a matter of law and that there were no genuine disputes of material fact. Payne appealed, arguing that the force was excessive and that the district court improperly weighed evidence.
The Fourth Circuit reviewed the grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing all facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, Payne. The court applied the Graham factors to determine if the force was objectively reasonable. First, regarding the severity of the crime, the court noted that while drug possession is a felony, it is nonviolent, and Payne was attempting to leave the area, which mitigates the severity. Second, and most importantly, the court found that Payne posed no immediate threat to the safety of officers or others at the time the force was directed. Unlike cases involving high-speed chases or reckless driving, Payne was driving slowly out of a parking lot. Third, the court considered whether Payne was actively resisting or evading arrest. The court found that because the vehicles were unmarked and lights were not activated until after the maneuvers began, a reasonable jury could conclude Payne did not know he was being pursued by law enforcement and was not evading arrest in the legal sense. The court held that ramming a vehicle without prior warning or clear identification of police authority was not objectively reasonable under these specific circumstances. Regarding the shooting, the court applied the standard that deadly force is only reasonable if there is probable cause to believe the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm. While the officers were told Payne might be armed, the court emphasized that simply being armed is not grounds for deadly force unless the suspect makes a furtive or threatening movement. The record contained conflicting testimony: Payne claimed his hands were at his side, while Moser claimed he saw Payne reach for the center console. Because there was no video evidence to corroborate either account, the court ruled that a reasonable jury could find for Payne, making summary judgment inappropriate. The court also noted that the district court had not addressed the qualified immunity defense, which must be considered on remand.
The case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings. The district court must now allow the case to proceed to trial on the excessive force claims, as the Fourth Circuit determined that a jury must resolve the disputed facts regarding the reasonableness of the force used. Additionally, the district court must address the qualified immunity defense, which was not previously considered, to determine if Sergeant Moser is entitled to immunity even if his actions are found to be unconstitutional.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download