The main question is whether there is excessive force in this case. You can refer to the case itself for the court opinion and you can give your opinion based on the law.

1(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2013 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus PLUMHOFF ET AL . v. RICKARD, A MINOR CHILD , INDIVIDUALLY , AND AS SURVIVING DAUGHTER OF RICKARD, DECEASED, BY AND THROUGH HER MOTHER RICKARD, AS PARENT AND NEXT FRIEND CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1117. Argued March 4, 2014Decided May 27, 2014 Donald Rickard led police officers on a high-speed car chase that came to a temporary halt when Rickard spun out into a parking lot. Rick- ard resumed maneuvering his car, and as he continued to use the ac- celerator even though his bumper was flush against a patrol car, an officer fired three shots into Rickard's car. Rickard managed to drive away, almost hitting an officer in the process. Officers fired 12 more shots as Rickard sped away, striking him and his passenger, both of whom died from some combination of gunshot wounds and injuries suffered when the car eventually crashed. Respondent, Rickard's minor daughter, filed a 42 U. S. C. 1983 action, alleging that the officers used excessive force in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The District Court denied the officers' motion for summary judgment based on qualified im- munity, holding that their conduct violated the Fourth Amendment and was contrary to clearly established law at the time in question. After finding that it had appellate jurisdiction, the Sixth Circuit held that the officers' conduct violated the Fourth Amendment. It af- firmed the District Court's order, suggesting that it agreed that the officers violated clearly established law.

I am looking for a detailed answer with references, please.