Ralph Pelton v. Alex Perdue, Jacob Pifer

Summary

**Sixth Circuit holds that officers were not entitled to qualified immunity on § 1983 claims for unreasonable seizure and excessive force where they mistakenly tackled an elderly man at the wrong home during a domestic violence call, but affirms immunity for a failure-to-intervene claim against a backup officer who lacked notice or opportunity to stop the rapid tackle.** The court found genuine disputes existed whether the officers had reasonable suspicion to seize the plaintiff given multiple discrepancies between the dispatch information and the scene, and whether the officer's tackle (fracturing pelvis and ribs) was excessive when the plaintiff only pulled his arm away during an allegedly unlawful stop. However, the failure-to-intervene claim failed because the sequence was too rapid for the second officer to perceive the excessive force and intervene in time.

Holdings

1. The district court properly denied qualified immunity on the unreasonable seizure claim because a reasonable juror could find that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion.
2. The district court properly denied qualified immunity on the excessive force claim because a reasonable juror could find that the force was excessive, especially if the stop itself was unreasonable.
3. The district court erred in denying qualified immunity on the failure-to-intervene claim because there is no evidence that Perdue had reason to know that excessive force would be used or that he had an opportunity to intervene.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the officers' seizure of Pelton was unreasonable and violated clearly established law.
2. Whether Sergeant Pifer's use of force was excessive and violated clearly established law.
3. Whether Corporal Perdue failed to intervene in the use of excessive force and whether that violated clearly established law.

Disposition

other