Dist.Ct. did not err in granting defendants-police officer and City's motion for summary judgment in plaintiff's section 1983 action alleging that defendant-police officer used excessive force during attempt to apprehend plaintiff's decedent. Record showed that prior to shooting, police officer received dispatch: (1) requesting assistance in apprehending decedent, who allegedly had arrest warrant for strangulation and suffocation; and (2) notifying officer that decedent had taken vehicle without consent and was known for violent tendencies. Thereafter, officer spotted decedent in vehicle, and decedent led officer on car chase that ended with decedent crashing his car into tree and decedent fleeing scene into car repair shop, where officer and decedent confronted each other between parked SUV. Officer thereafter shot decedent in repair shop six times. Officer was entitled to qualified immunity, since officer could reasonably use deadly force, where record showed that: (1) decedent had refused every opportunity to surrender during chase and during confrontation in car repair shop; (2) decedent chose to become aggressor and had dared officer to shoot him; and (3) officer reasonably believed that decedent's actions placed him in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury.
