Kilgore v. Gordy

James Kilgore was severely injured when his vehicle was struck by a Montgomery police cruiser driven by Officer Michael Gordy during a high-speed pursuit of a felony suspect. Kilgore sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging excessive force and a violation of his substantive due process rights. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants. On October 5, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld that decision, concluding that the officer's actions did not shock the conscience and therefore no Fourteenth Amendment violation occurred.

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Officer Michael Gordy and the City of Montgomery, holding that the pursuit tactics did not rise to the conscience-shocking level required for a substantive due process claim, and that the officer was therefore shielded by qualified immunity.

Whether a police officer's actions during a high-speed pursuit that injures an innocent bystander constitute a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's substantive due process clause, and whether the officer is entitled to qualified immunity.

The ruling reinforced the extremely high legal threshold for constitutional claims brought by bystanders injured during police pursuits. It strengthened qualified immunity protections for law enforcement by emphasizing that mere reckless or negligent driving during a chase does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment absent an intent to cause harm. Civil rights advocates cited the case as evidence of the need to reexamine use-of-force and pursuit policies, while law enforcement groups viewed it as validation of officer discretion in emergency situations.