Summary
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the City of Madison and its police officers in Frederick D. Jackson’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The court held that Jackson’s failure-to-intervene and property-damage claims were waived, that officers had probable cause for his warrantless arrest, and that qualified immunity barred his excessive-force claims arising from the use of 40-millimeter foam rounds. The excerpt ends during the court’s discussion of exigent circumstances and does not include the opinion’s conclusion.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Jackson waived his failure-to-intervene claim by presenting only a vague and conclusory argument on appeal.
- Whether Jackson waived his property-damage claim and, alternatively, whether he could establish a causal connection between the damage and the named defendants or recover for damage to property owned by his former wife.
- Whether officers had probable cause to arrest Jackson without a warrant for disorderly conduct and reckless endangerment.
- Whether exigent circumstances justified the warrantless arrest of Jackson inside the residence after a multihour standoff.
- Whether the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on Jackson's warrantless-arrest claim because the asserted right was not clearly established in December 2019.
- Whether officers used excessive force by firing 40-millimeter foam rounds at Jackson and, if so, whether clearly established law defeated qualified immunity.
- Whether Jackson waived his claim concerning the force used to handcuff him.
Holdings
- Jackson waived his failure-to-intervene claim by offering only a single vague and conclusory assertion without addressing the claim's elements or supporting authority.
- Jackson waived his property-damage claim, and his argument also failed because he did not establish that the named defendants caused the damage or that he could recover under § 1983 for damage to property owned by his former wife.
- Officers had probable cause to arrest Jackson for disorderly conduct and reckless endangerment.
- Jackson's later acquittal and subsequent investigation results neither negate nor establish probable cause, which is determined from what officers reasonably knew at the time of arrest.
- The court did not decide whether the warrantless arrest violated the Fourth Amendment because, even assuming a constitutional violation, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity: in December 2019, it was not clearly established that exigent circumstances dissipated during a multihour standoff involving a suspect reasonably believed to be armed and dangerous.
- The officers were entitled to qualified immunity on Jackson's excessive-force claim based on the three 40-millimeter foam rounds because Jackson did not identify a sufficiently analogous case clearly establishing that the force was unlawful under the circumstances.
Key quotations
“Probable cause to justify an arrest exists if the totality of the facts and circumstances known to the officer at the time of the arrest would warrant a reasonable, prudent person in believing that the arrestee had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime.” (11)
“The “police bear a heavy burden when attempting to demonstrate an urgent need that might justify warrantless searches or arrests.”” (16)
“We analyze excessive force claims under the Fourth Amendment’s ‘reasonableness’ standard.” (23)
“We do not mean to explain away the officers’ actions. We mean only to emphasize that case law does not establish “beyond debate” that the officers’ use of force on Jackson was unreasonable.” (31)
Factual background
Police responded to a report from Jackson's neighbor that gunshots had been heard near the home where Jackson was staying. Several officers reported hearing sounds they believed were gunshots, and officers learned that Jackson had alcoholism and a weapons history. After a multihour standoff during which Jackson did not respond to police communications, officers broke windows and the front door to make their commands more audible and entered the dark home. Jackson appeared on an upstairs landing wearing boxer shorts, yelled and gestured at officers, did not immediately comply with commands, and was struck three times with 40-millimeter foam rounds before being taken into custody.
Procedural history
Jackson sued the City of Madison and six officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin granted summary judgment to all defendants, concluding that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless arrest, that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the excessive-force and failure-to-intervene claims, and that Jackson could not recover for property damage caused by officers who were not defendants. On appeal, Jackson abandoned the Monell claim against the City and certain excessive-force claims, while attempting to pursue his warrantless-arrest, foam-round, failure-to-intervene, and property-damage claims. The Seventh Circuit held that the failure-to-intervene and property-damage claims were waived, and affirmed summary judgment on the remaining claims.