Becker v. Bateman
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 4059
10th Cir.2013Background
- Becker was stopped by Officer Bateman in Heber City, Utah for a cracked windshield and suspected intoxication.
- Becker exited the vehicle; field sobriety tests were attempted; Becker questioned the stop and resisted arrest per Bateman’s view.
- Bateman threw Becker to the ground, causing Becker a severe traumatic brain injury, with most of the stop recorded on dash-cam video.
- Becker sued Bateman, the City, and the Chief of Police under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force and loss of consortium.
- The district court granted summary judgment to all defendants, finding no constitutional violation.
- On appeal, the Tenth Circuit partially affirmed and partially reversed, addressing qualified immunity and municipal liability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bateman’s takedown of Becker violated the Fourth Amendment. | Becker argues excessive force; facts show unresisted or minimal resistance. | Bateman acted reasonably to arrest an intoxicated, potentially dangerous suspect. | Bateman entitled to qualified immunity; no clearly established violation as of 2005. |
| Whether the City can be held liable under Monell for Bateman’s conduct. | City’s policies/customs caused the constitutional violation. | No underlying violation by Bateman, so no Monell claim. | District court erred on material-fact questions; City liability must be reconsidered on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 F.3d 386 (U.S. 1989) (reasonableness judged from officer on scene perspective)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (U.S. 2001) (two-prong qualified immunity inquiry; how to proceed)
- Novitsky v. City of Aurora, 491 F.3d 1244 (10th Cir. 2007) (excessive-force inquiry is fact-specific; intoxication concerns)
- Mecham v. Frazier, 500 F.3d 1200 (10th Cir. 2007) (uncontroverted facts do not require jury determination of reasonableness)
- Morris v. Noe, 672 F.3d 1185 (10th Cir. 2012) (weight of authority standard for clearly established law)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S. 2009) (courts may address the prong of qualified immunity in any order)
- J.W. ex rel. A.W. v. Utah, 647 F.3d 1006 (10th Cir. 2011) (summary-judgment standard for qualified-immunity context)
- Rezaq v. Nalley, 677 F.3d 1001 (10th Cir. 2012) (binding precedent on qualified immunity and clearly established law)
- Santos v. Gates, 287 F.3d 846 (9th Cir. 2002) (published authority on intoxicated arrestee case; not binding in all circuits)
- Casey v. City of Federal Heights, 509 F.3d 1278 (10th Cir. 2007) (non-analogous intoxication context; distinguishable facts)