While effectuating the arrest of Deshyamma Dalton (“Dalton”), detective John Caccia (“Caccia”) shot and killed Jacob Servais (“Servais”). Servais’ mother, as Administrator of his Estate, filed a lawsuit against the law enforcement officers and agencies involved in the incident, claiming that Caccia’s use of lethal force against Servais was excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The issue in Servais v. Caccia, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 11473 (3d Cir. May 13, 2025) was whether the use of deadly force was reasonable under the totality of the circumstances.
Officers John Caccia and Dallas Bohn had planned to apprehend the armed robbery suspect Dalton, as she returned a rental car. Servais drove to pick up Dalton at the rental agency and backed into a parking spot on the side of the agency’s building. Officers Caccia, Bohn, and Best surrounded him while a separate cohort arrested Dalton. Caccia had parked his unmarked SUV “nose to nose” with Servais’ sedan with 2-4 feet between their front bumpers. Best parked perpendicular to Servais on the driver’s side of Caccia’s SUV.
As the vehicles came to the stop, both Bohn and Caccia exited their vehicles. Bohn exited on the passenger side and began yelling commands for Servais to surrender, while Caccia exited on the driver’s side, facing the passenger side of Servais’ sedan and also gave commands, while drawing his weapon. However, Servais did not turn off the engine, exit his vehicle, or put his hands up. Instead, he shook his head in response to one of Bohn’s commands.
He then attempted to drive out of the parking spot, first driving forward toward Bohn and bumping the passenger side of the SUV. Bohn moved to the right and out of the way. Servais then reversed, became stuck in the parking block behind his vehicle and accelerated forward towards Caccia, who was standing near the front driver’s side of the SUV. Fearing he was going to be run over by Servais’ vehicle, Caccia shot Servais three times through the windshield. Servais reversed again, before succumbing to his injuries.
Servais’ Estate brought a claim for his death, claiming excessive force under the Fourth Amendment. To prove that claim, one must show that a seizure occurred and that it was unreasonable under the circumstances. The reasonableness of the seizure under the totality of the circumstances would be “from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 2020’s vision of hindsight” and “consider the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.” The Court further pointed out that “assessment of the threat of injury . . . is crucial to identifying the magnitude of the governmental interest at stake.”
The Third Circuit stated that “it was beyond dispute that Caccia’s use of deadly force was reasonable under the totality of the circumstances.” The Court stated that it has long held that “an otherwise non-threatening individual engaged in vehicular flight is entitled to be free from being subjected to deadly force if it is unreasonable for an officer to believe his or others’ lives were in immediate jeopardy from their actions.” However, the Court stated that “when the driver’s actions threaten imminent death or critical injuries, deadly force is permissible.”
The Court pointed out that Servais did pose a serious threat to Caccia’s life and limb. Caccia was standing directly in front of an accelerating vehicle when he discharged his weapon, “only a few feet and moments away from a potentially life-threatening collision.”
The Court further pointed out that Servais had failed to comply with the officers’ commands and, seconds earlier, had nearly struck Bohn with his vehicle. As Servais turned and drove at Caccia, the Court found that it was reasonable for Caccia to believe that he was about to be struck as well. The Court noted that in light of “Servais’ non-compliance, continuously threatening behavior, violent criminal record, and the immediate threat of a deadly collision, Caccia’s use of force falls within the narrow set of circumstances where use of deadly force is permissible against a moving vehicle.”
Hence, the Third Circuit upheld the District’s Court’s grant of summary judgment, dismissing the complaint.
