fbpx

2 New Use Of Force Court Decisions Offer Valuable “Learning Points”

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Two recent federal appellate decisions are good reminders of how US judges may assess claims of excessive force where unarmed suspects are involved.

Atty. Michael Brave, always a popular legal updater at ILEETA conferences and other venues, tells Force Science News that these cases “have many learning points” for trainers, police attorneys, and street officers alike.

Case #1

Attempted gun grab, a violent scuffle, then flight unarmed
The first case began one night when a patrol officer in Tennessee stopped to offer assistance to two men tending to a flat tire alongside an interstate highway. When the men declined help, the officer decided to run their license plate and got feedback suggesting the car was stolen.

When the officer stepped out of his unit to investigate further, one of the men “leaned down inside” the stalled vehicle through the driver-side window as if, from the officer’s perspective, he “was reaching for a weapon.” When he rose from the car, he “did not appear to have a weapon in his hands,” according to the appellate decision, but matters escalated quickly nonetheless.

When the officer placed a hand on the suspect’s sleeve, the man swung two punches at the officer’s torso, then rabbited. He ignored commands to stop, but the officer tackled him to the ground.

During “several seconds of active struggle,” the two “exchanged punches” and the suspect “repeatedly grabbed at” the officer’s holstered sidearm without gaining control of it. The officer deployed his CEW into the suspect’s abdomen. When that proved ineffective, the officer unsuccessfully applied drive stuns to the suspect’s torso and neck and, in the process, “became tangled in the Taser wires [himself] and was shocked as a result.”

At one point, the suspect had the officer flat on his back and was straddling him, although he made no attempt to disarm him then.

When the attacker finally stood up and turned to flee, the officer drew his handgun and fired—three shots from the ground, three more after he scrambled to his feet. From first physical contact to final firing took 35 seconds. The suspect died from six GSWs, all to his back.

IMMUNITY DENIED

The suspect’s next of kin brought a Sect. 1983 legal action against the officer, alleging excessive force. The officer asked the federal district court to grant summary judgment in his favor on the ground of qualified immunity. The court refused, ruling that the case should go to a jury.
“[S]ome level of force [by the officer] was objectively reasonable under the circumstances,” the court said, but “the use of deadly force was not.” The officer “had no objective reason for believing that [his adversary] posed a serious threat while fleeing unarmed.” Thus, “a reasonable jury could conclude [the suspect] was not a threat to anyone when he turned and began to flee.”

The law is “clearly established that when an individual is obviously not armed and is attempting to flee at the time he was shot, the use of deadly force is typically unreasonable under the circumstances,” the court said.
The officer appealed to the 6th Circuit US Court of Appeals, which hears cases from KY, MI, OH, and TN.

APPELLATE ACTION

In a decision written by Judge John Marshall Rogers, a three-judge panel upheld the district court’s ruling.

In his appeal, the officer had argued that he had “probable cause to fear for his safety, even in the seconds after [the suspect] had turned to flee,” because the assailant had grabbed at his holstered sidearm “several times during their struggle.” The panel, however, was unpersuaded.

The reasonableness of the use of deadly force depends “primarily on objective assessment of the danger a suspect poses” at the “particular moment” lethal force is used, Rogers wrote. “Even if [the officer] had probable cause to fear for his safety during his struggle with [the suspect], it could well be that he lacked the same cause after the struggle had ended and [the suspect], still unarmed, had turned and begun to flee.”

This unpublished decision, Carden v. City of Knoxville (TN), can be accessed in full, free of charge, by clicking here.

Case #2

Medical distress, use of physical force, handcuffing, & the ADA
Also an excessive force claim from the 6th Circuit, this case involves an unarmed man who suffered an epileptic seizure while driving in Ohio one cold February morning. When he steered his car into a residential yard, honked his horn “for help,” and got out unsteadily, a neighbor called 911 to report “suspicious activity.”

A sheriff’s deputy found the man sweating and “grasping a waist-high chain-link fence, swaying back and forth” with his pants “down around his knees.” He was yelling out “Baby,” and kept yelling without complying when the deputy asked him to return to his car to “discuss the incident.”

The deputy thought he “was under the influence of something” and began to peel his fingers from the fence. The man yanked his arm away and the deputy “took him to the ground with a leg sweep.” He landed facedown and the deputy fell on top of him.

As they wrestled, with the deputy trying to gain control of the subject’s arms for cuffing, a municipal officer arrived. With the man still struggling and with one of his arms now concealed beneath him, the officer drive-stunned him repeatedly to the back and neck. Not until two more officers arrived and helped hold him down was the man finally controlled and handcuffed.

The data recorder on the CEW showed it had been “deployed eight times, for a total of 48 seconds, during an encounter…that lasted less than two minutes.” None of the officers ever informed the man that he was under arrest.

In his lawsuit, the man claimed that he told the deputy he was “sick and having a seizure” early in the encounter. He said he didn’t remember struggling or being tased, but he alleged that he “has post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of the incident.”

MULTIPLE DISMISSES

In this case, a federal district court did grant summary judgment in the defendant officers’ favor on the ground of qualified immunity.
The officers had used justified “measured force”—not unconstitutional excessive force—in response to the plaintiff’s “defiance of their orders and reaching where the officers could not see his hands,” the court ruled.

The district judge not only dismissed the plaintiff’s excessive force claim but also dismissed his allegations that the officers had violated his rights under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act and dismissed his state-law claims for “assault and battery and for intentional infliction of emotional distress.”

REVERSALS

A three-judge appellate panel, however, saw the circumstances much differently when the plaintiff appealed.

As to the deputy who first dealt with him, the judges ruled that he violated the subject’s “right to be free from excessive force when he took [the plaintiff] to the ground with a leg sweep and landed on top of [him].”

The deputy “did not state, either in his incident report or in his deposition testimony, that he believed that [the unarmed man] presented a safety threat.” He conceded that the plaintiff said he was sick and that he was holding the fence to maintain his balance.

It is well-established, the panel declared, that “a non-violent, non-resisting, or only passively resisting suspect who is not under arrest has a right to be free from an officer’s use of force…. ‘[P]assive’ resistance does not justify substantial use of force.”

The only reason the deputy knocked the man down was to handcuff him and restrain him forcibly. “Significantly,” the judges said, “at no point during the entire episode was [the plaintiff] under arrest for any offense whatsoever….[T]he mere failure of a citizen—not arrested for any crime—to follow the officer’s commands does not give a law enforcement official authority to put the citizen in handcuffs.”

In short, the deputy “is not entitled to qualified immunity.”

As to the officer who tased the subject, he did not warrant immunity either, the panel decided. It is “clearly established,” the judges ruled, “that a police officer violates a suspect’s right to be free from excessive force by repeatedly tasing the suspect without giving him a chance to comply with orders.”

Applying the CEW for 48 seconds in less than two minutes did not give the man sufficient time to comply with commands to submit to handcuffing and thus was unreasonable, the panel said.

The appeals panel did sustain the district court’s ruling that the officers had not violated the plaintiff’s ADA rights. To establish a violation, the judges explained, “the plaintiff must show that the defendants intentionally discriminated against him because of his disability,” and there was no evidence of that in this case.

As a final blow to the defendants, the panel suggested that the district judge might want to “reconsider” his decision to dismiss state claims against the officers, in light of his being overruled in the matters of excessive force.
With that suggestion included, the panel remanded the case to the district court “for further proceedings consistent with” its opinion.

The published decision in this case, Smith v. City of Troy (OH), can be accessed in full without charge by clicking here.

GDPR

  • Privacy Policy

Privacy Policy

Effective date: January 06, 2019

Force Science Institute, Ltd. (“us”, “we”, or “our”) operates the https://www.forcescience.org/ website (hereinafter referred to as the “Service”).

This page informs you of our policies regarding the collection, use, and disclosure of personal data when you use our Service and the choices you have associated with that data. Our Privacy Policy for Force Science Institute, Ltd. is based on the Privacy Policy Template from Privacy Policies.

We use your data to provide and improve the Service. By using the Service, you agree to the collection and use of information in accordance with this policy. Unless otherwise defined in this Privacy Policy, the terms used in this Privacy Policy have the same meanings as in our Terms and Conditions, accessible from https://www.forcescience.org/

Information Collection And Use

We collect several different types of information for various purposes to provide and improve our Service to you.

Types of Data Collected

Personal Data

While using our Service, we may ask you to provide us with certain personally identifiable information that can be used to contact or identify you (“Personal Data”). Personally identifiable information may include, but is not limited to:

  • Email address
  • First name and last name
  • Phone number
  • Address, State, Province, ZIP/Postal code, City
  • Cookies and Usage Data

Usage Data

We may also collect information on how the Service is accessed and used (“Usage Data”). This Usage Data may include information such as your computer’s Internet Protocol address (e.g. IP address), browser type, browser version, the pages of our Service that you visit, the time and date of your visit, the time spent on those pages, unique device identifiers and other diagnostic data.

Tracking & Cookies Data

We use cookies and similar tracking technologies to track the activity on our Service and hold certain information.

Cookies are files with small amount of data which may include an anonymous unique identifier. Cookies are sent to your browser from a website and stored on your device. Tracking technologies also used are beacons, tags, and scripts to collect and track information and to improve and analyze our Service.

You can instruct your browser to refuse all cookies or to indicate when a cookie is being sent. However, if you do not accept cookies, you may not be able to use some portions of our Service. You can learn more how to manage cookies in the Browser Cookies Guide.

Examples of Cookies we use:

  • Session Cookies. We use Session Cookies to operate our Service.
  • Preference Cookies. We use Preference Cookies to remember your preferences and various settings.
  • Security Cookies. We use Security Cookies for security purposes.

Use of Data

Force Science Institute, Ltd. uses the collected data for various purposes:

  • To provide and maintain the Service
  • To notify you about changes to our Service
  • To allow you to participate in interactive features of our Service when you choose to do so
  • To provide customer care and support
  • To provide analysis or valuable information so that we can improve the Service
  • To monitor the usage of the Service
  • To detect, prevent and address technical issues

Transfer Of Data

Your information, including Personal Data, may be transferred to — and maintained on — computers located outside of your state, province, country or other governmental jurisdiction where the data protection laws may differ than those from your jurisdiction.

If you are located outside United States and choose to provide information to us, please note that we transfer the data, including Personal Data, to United States and process it there.

Your consent to this Privacy Policy followed by your submission of such information represents your agreement to that transfer.

Force Science Institute, Ltd. will take all steps reasonably necessary to ensure that your data is treated securely and in accordance with this Privacy Policy and no transfer of your Personal Data will take place to an organization or a country unless there are adequate controls in place including the security of your data and other personal information.

Disclosure Of Data

Legal Requirements

Force Science Institute, Ltd. may disclose your Personal Data in the good faith belief that such action is necessary to:

  • To comply with a legal obligation
  • To protect and defend the rights or property of Force Science Institute, Ltd.
  • To prevent or investigate possible wrongdoing in connection with the Service
  • To protect the personal safety of users of the Service or the public
  • To protect against legal liability

Security Of Data

The security of your data is important to us, but remember that no method of transmission over the Internet, or method of electronic storage is 100% secure. While we strive to use commercially acceptable means to protect your Personal Data, we cannot guarantee its absolute security.

Service Providers

We may employ third party companies and individuals to facilitate our Service (“Service Providers”), to provide the Service on our behalf, to perform Service-related services or to assist us in analyzing how our Service is used.

These third parties have access to your Personal Data only to perform these tasks on our behalf and are obligated not to disclose or use it for any other purpose.

Analytics

We may use third-party Service Providers to monitor and analyze the use of our Service.

  • Google AnalyticsGoogle Analytics is a web analytics service offered by Google that tracks and reports website traffic. Google uses the data collected to track and monitor the use of our Service. This data is shared with other Google services. Google may use the collected data to contextualize and personalize the ads of its own advertising network.You can opt-out of having made your activity on the Service available to Google Analytics by installing the Google Analytics opt-out browser add-on. The add-on prevents the Google Analytics JavaScript (ga.js, analytics.js, and dc.js) from sharing information with Google Analytics about visits activity.For more information on the privacy practices of Google, please visit the Google Privacy & Terms web page: https://policies.google.com/privacy?hl=en

Links To Other Sites

Our Service may contain links to other sites that are not operated by us. If you click on a third party link, you will be directed to that third party’s site. We strongly advise you to review the Privacy Policy of every site you visit.

We have no control over and assume no responsibility for the content, privacy policies or practices of any third party sites or services.

Children’s Privacy

Our Service does not address anyone under the age of 18 (“Children”).

We do not knowingly collect personally identifiable information from anyone under the age of 18. If you are a parent or guardian and you are aware that your Children has provided us with Personal Data, please contact us. If we become aware that we have collected Personal Data from children without verification of parental consent, we take steps to remove that information from our servers.

Changes To This Privacy Policy

We may update our Privacy Policy from time to time. We will notify you of any changes by posting the new Privacy Policy on this page.

We will let you know via email and/or a prominent notice on our Service, prior to the change becoming effective and update the “effective date” at the top of this Privacy Policy.

You are advised to review this Privacy Policy periodically for any changes. Changes to this Privacy Policy are effective when they are posted on this page.

Contact Us

If you have any questions about this Privacy Policy, please contact us:

  • By email: support@forcescience.org
  • By visiting this page on our website: https://www.forcescience.org/contact
  • By phone number: 866-683-1944
  • By mail: Force Science Institute, Ltd.