Summary
This Eleventh Circuit opinion reviews a district court's grant of summary judgment based on qualified immunity in a civil rights action alleging excessive force under the Fourth Amendment. The court held that while initial restraint techniques were reasonable to secure a firearm, the officer's subsequent chokehold and punch against a subdued, compliant suspect constituted excessive force. Consequently, the court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Officer Ceinski is entitled to qualified immunity for the use of a chokehold and punch after the suspect was subdued
- Whether Jones’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force was clearly established at the time of the incident
Holdings
- Officer Ceinski is not entitled to qualified immunity; the use of a chokehold and punch after the suspect was subdued was excessive force violating the Fourth Amendment.
- The right was clearly established; officers receive fair warning that using a chokehold and punch on a compliant, subdued suspect is unconstitutional.
Key quotations
“A police officer violates the Fourth Amendment, and is denied qualified immunity, if he or she uses gratuitous and excessive force against a suspect who is under control, not resisting, and obeying commands.” (1328)
Factual background
Officer David Ceinski stopped Jeremy Jones for a minor traffic violation. Jones complied, disclosed a concealed firearm under the driver’s seat, and was subsequently grabbed, twisted, pushed against his car, placed in a chokehold, and punched in the head after he was subdued and could not access the weapon.
Procedural history
The district court granted summary judgment to Officer Ceinski on the ground of qualified immunity, finding no clearly established right was violated. The appellate court reviewed de novo and reversed.
Remand instructions
For further proceedings in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.