Qualified Immunity Denied For Officer In Bodyweight Use Of Force Case
This post is only offered as a discussion topic only and does not represent legal advice. Officers must refer to the laws in their own State as well as their agency's policies, which can be more restrictive on officers that the law requires.
Scenario: While working patrol, an officer and their partners get into a fight with a violent arrestee and finally get handcuffs on him. He's still flailing around after being handcuffed so the officer continues to put bodyweight on the man and tell him to calm down. He claims he can't breathe and the officer tells him that if he's fighting and yelling, he can still breathe. The man later claims that he received two fractured vertebrae and has ongoing numbness due to your actions.
Can the officer be held liable for excessive force for their actions?
Answer: That was one of the questions in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Case Spencer v. Pew, published on September 17, 2024. As with any use of force analysis, the court applied the balancing test set forth in Graham v. Connor to decide if the crime, threat, resistance and flight of the subject rose to a level that would justify the force used by the officer. And the courts have previously said that the threat posed by the subject is the most important factor in the use of force analysis. They're also going to discuss prior case law to decide if the officer should have known that his actions were a violation of the man's constitutional rights. Here's a portion of the hearing before the 9th Circuit, with the officer's attorney trying to defend him.
from 13:54 - 15:54
The court decided that there was in fact clearly established law on this matter. They published their opinion on September 17, 2024. They said, "As the body camera footage shows, once (the man) was handcuffed, (the officer) knelt on (the man), placing his full body weight onto (the man’s) upper back and neck as other officers held him down. Except for a few seconds in which he briefly knelt next to (the man), (the officer) had one or both knees on (the man’s) back for nearly three minutes. During that time, (the man) complained that he could not breathe at least four separate times. At one point, (the officer) simultaneously had his right knee on (the man’s) head and his left knee on (the man’s) back for more than 10 seconds. Here, as in Drummond, (the officer) continued to press his weight on (the man's) neck and torso as he lay handcuffed on the ground and begged for air."
"Although (the man) continued to move somewhat on the ground, he was handcuffed and surrounded by multiple officers, and a jury could reasonably conclude that he was no longer providing any serious resistance and that he posed only a minimal threat to anyone’s safety. Although some force might have been warranted to check his remaining movements, every reasonable officer would recognize that full-body-weight compression of a then largely compliant, prone, and handcuffed individual despite his pleas for air involved a degree of force that is greater than reasonable.”
"...we conclude that (the officer) violated clearly established law in connection with his kneeling on (the man) after (the man) was handcuffed. Accordingly, in that respect, we reverse the district court’s grant of qualified immunity to (the officer)."
This case is just one in a line of cases where officers did not receive qualified immunity for the use of body weight. Some of the other cases included LaLonde v. County of Riverside where officers put bodyweight on the back of handcuffed man after he was pepper sprayed, Drummond v. City of Anaheim where officers placed bodyweight on the back and neck of a handcuffed man, and Scott v. Smith where officers placed bodyweight and handcuffed a man who did not commit a crime.
It's important not to interpret these decisions as the courts saying officers can't use of bodyweight to control someone. That's not what they're saying. They're saying that after a person is handcuffed or restrained, or if they've committed no crime, the governmental interest in using significant force is diminished. In those circumstances, officer's generally cannot kneel on a prone person's back so hard as to cause injury. So, unless there are objectively reasonable facts that the person is still a threat after being handcuffed, which would be very rare, the best course of action is to sit or stand them up as soon as possible. Searches should happen on their feet not while face down. And if someone says they can't breath, do not dismiss their claims. Instead, acknowledge on body camera that you heard them and make some form of adjustment that shows you're trying to make breathing easier for them.
This blog topic serves as a summary of our video lesson on this crucial topic. If you're interested in accessing the full video lesson and additional resources, click the link to register for your free 30-day trial.
The Briefing Room has a short training video available on this exact scenario so agency supervisors can easily train every officer in your agency on this essential topic.
90-Second Training Videos Your Supervisors Use During Briefing or Roll Call To Develop High-Performing Teams of Officers.
✅ Lower Liability
✅ Retain Officers
✅ Build Community Support
🌟 Produced Exclusively by Active-Duty Law Enforcement Instructors 🌟
© 2024 THE BRIEFING ROOM
Site Design by Solmark Creative | Development by Adam Wills Marketing