Summary
The Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of qualified immunity to a housing authority police officer who used a taser and pepper spray on a custodian responding to a noise complaint. Applying the Graham factors, the court held that a reasonable jury could find the force excessive because the crime was minor (noise complaint), the plaintiff posed no immediate threat, and he was not actively resisting or told he was under arrest. The court further held that the right to be free from taser and pepper spray use against a non-resisting suspect was clearly established as of 2014. The opinion also clarifies that the court has jurisdiction over an interlocutory qualified-immunity appeal when the appellant raises the legal question of whether the facts alleged support a clearly established violation, even if the appellant disputes some facts.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Officer Ali is entitled to qualified immunity on the excessive force claim.
- Whether the force used was objectively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
- Whether the right to be free from such force was clearly established.
Holdings
- Officer Ali is not entitled to qualified immunity because a reasonable jury could find that he used excessive force in violation of clearly established law.
Key quotations
“The determination whether Officers Ali’s actions constitute excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment 'requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.'” (at 8)
“'When a suspect actively resists arrest, the police can use a taser to subdue him; but when a suspect does not resist, or has stopped resisting, they cannot.'” (at 10)
Factual background
On January 20, 2014, Officer Ali responded to a noise complaint at an apartment unit. Saunders, a custodian, was delivering a soda to the tenant's sister. After identifying himself, Saunders attempted to show his ID but was gestured to wait. When Officer Ali later asked for ID, Saunders questioned why he was being intimidated. Officer Ali called his supervisor, and Saunders put his hands in his pockets. After Officer Ali drew his taser, Saunders turned to leave and was tased, then pepper-sprayed in the hallway. Saunders entered a neighbor's apartment, and after being handcuffed by other officers, Officer Ali continued to taser him multiple times, including after he was restrained and not resisting.
Procedural history
Saunders brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Officer Ali and CMHA, alleging excessive force, failure to train/supervise, and negligent supervision. The district court granted summary judgment to CMHA and to Officer Ali on the official capacity claim, but denied summary judgment to Officer Ali on the individual-capacity excessive-force claim, rejecting qualified immunity. Officer Ali appealed.