031293P.pdf   02/04/2005  James Terrell  v.  Brek Larson
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  03-1293
   District of Minnesota   
   Civil Case - civil rights; substantive due process. Deputy Sheriffs, 
   while responding to a domestic disturbance call, collided with Terrell's 
   car, killing Terrell's daughter-in-law. District court's denial of qualified 
   immunity is reversed on substantive due process claim. Intent-to-harm 
   standard of County of Sacramento v. Lewis applies to an officer's 
   decision to engage in high-speed driving in response to emergencies and 
   officer's subjective belief in what is emergency applies. Alternatively, 
   officers are entitled to qualified immunity under deliberate indifference 
   standard. Dissent. 
   [PUBLISHED] [En Banc] [Chief Judge Loken, Author, with Wollman, 
   M. Arnold, Murphy, Riley, Melloy, Smith, Colloton, Gruender, and 
   Benton, Circuit Judges. Lay, Heaney and Bye, Circuit Judges, dissenting. 
   Heaney, writing separately] 
  
031293P.pdf   06/10/2004  James Terrell  v.  Brek Larson
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  03-1293
   District of Minnesota   
   Civil case - civil rights. In action claiming defendant police officers 
   violated plaintiff's decedent's civil rights when they collided with his 
   vehicle while responding to a domestic disturbance call, case would be 
   viewed under a deliberate indifference standard, as the facts indicated a 
   situation where the officers in the police vehicle were afforded a 
   reasonable opportunity to deliberate various alternatives prior to electing 
   a high speed approach to the scene of the disturbance; deputy who was 
   merely a passenger in the police vehicle was entitled to qualified 
   immunity as he did not have authority to overrule the driver's decisions, 
   and the plaintiffs failed to show that he acted with deliberate indifference 
   to decedent's rights; the driver, however, disregarded substantial risks of 
   harm when he decided to proceed through a red light at a high rate of 
   speed and the district court did not err in denying his motion for summary 
   judgment based on qualified immunity. Dissent by Chief Judge Loken. 
   [PUBLISHED] [Per Curiam - Loken, Chief Judge and Lay and Heaney, 
   Circuit Judges]