Vehicle shootings put ICE use-of-force claims under scrutiny

Federal immigration officers have shot and killed two people behind the wheel within a week, putting new attention on how officials describe cars as threats during enforcement actions. Fortune reported that the phrase “weaponized vehicle” has become common in federal statements and news conferences during the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown.

In a fatal shooting Monday involving a driver in Maine, federal authorities first used that language in discussions with state officials, according to Fortune. Department of Homeland Security officials later described the shooting publicly by saying officers fired into the vehicle because they feared for public safety.

Fortune reported that the Maine case was the second such fatal shooting in a week by federal immigration authorities. In both cases, officials initially accused the driver of trying to ram immigration officers.

The central issue is whether a moving vehicle, by itself, justifies deadly force. Courts and legislatures have recognized that cars can be used as weapons, Fortune reported, but that does not settle the question facing officers in the moment.

Courts have treated vehicles as weapons in some cases

According to Fortune, state and federal judges have often accepted that a vehicle can qualify as a weapon when someone uses it to hurt another person. Many of those rulings have come after an injury or death, when prosecutors sought enhanced charges such as aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

State laws involving assaults with vehicles often apply to cases tied to traffic violations, driving requirements or manslaughter-related charges, Fortune reported. Judicial opinions have more often dealt with negligence, road rage, intoxicated driving or, in rarer cases, a driver intentionally steering into a crowd.

Those cases usually do not answer the immediate use-of-force question for police or federal agents, according to Fortune. Officers must decide whether a vehicle in motion creates a threat that warrants shooting at the driver, and that legal standard depends heavily on the facts.

Police training often warns against shooting at cars

Fortune reported that many law enforcement agencies train officers to avoid firing at moving vehicles because of the risk to other people. A missed shot can strike a bystander, and a driver hit by gunfire may lose control of the vehicle.

Many department policies instead tell officers to move out of the vehicle’s path when possible, according to Fortune. Those policies often say that a suspect’s flight alone does not justify deadly force.

Some policies require an additional threat, such as a firearm used by someone inside the vehicle, before officers can conclude that deadly force is needed to protect the public or themselves, Fortune reported.

Experts point to speed, crowds and context

Use-of-force policies commonly include exceptions for attacks in which a driver aims a vehicle into crowded streets to cause widespread harm, Fortune reported. Experts cited by Fortune said those exceptions have sometimes been invoked in cases that did not involve the same level of danger.

Those experts said officers and juries should weigh details such as the vehicle’s speed, whether pedestrians or large groups are nearby, and why law enforcement initiated the stop or encounter. Fortune gave the example of a person fleeing an armed bank robbery, who may present a different risk than someone driving away from a traffic stop.

The recent immigration-enforcement shootings show why the label matters. Calling a car weaponized can frame a shooting as a defensive act, but Fortune reported that law, training and expert analysis treat the question as case-specific rather than automatic.

This story draws on original reporting from Fortune.