Bodager v. Campbell
2013 Ohio 4650
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- On Jan. 1, 2007, Officer Brian Anderson radared Eric Bodager for speeding, followed him through turns and an alley, activated lights/siren, and ultimately confronted him on a private driveway; a trooper’s cruiser video recorded the encounter.
- Bodager exited his vehicle and the officers ordered him to the ground; a physical struggle occurred while officers attempted to handcuff him; Bodager fell and was restrained; four marijuana roaches were later found in his car.
- Bodager pled guilty to minor misdemeanors (speeding, failure to signal, seatbelt) and the remaining more serious charges (OVI, resisting, failure to comply) were dismissed (not for lack of probable cause).
- Bodager sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (excessive force, wrongful arrest/prosecution, failure to train) and state-law claims (malicious prosecution, false arrest, battery). Defendants moved for summary judgment.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for officers (Anderson, Campbell) and the City of Waverly; on appeal the Fourth District affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excessive force (§1983) | Bodager: officers used unreasonable, excessive force during handcuffing and takedown | Officers: Bodager resisted by pushing/turning away; limited force to effect handcuffing was reasonable | No excessive force — force objectively reasonable; video corroborates resistance |
| Officer Campbell’s use of police dog | Bodager: presence of canine contributed to excessive force/assault | Campbell: he only commanded the dog to bark and never touched Bodager; presence alone not force | No excessive force by Campbell — mere presence/command to bark not excessive force |
| Wrongful arrest under §1983 | Bodager: Ohio law (R.C. 2935.26) bars arrest for minor misdemeanors here, so arrest violated Fourth Amendment | Defendants: probable cause existed for minor offenses observed in presence; federal Fourth Amendment permits arrest for misdemeanors even if state law restricts arrest | No wrongful arrest — probable cause existed; state statutory limits do not create §1983 Fourth Amendment violation |
| State-law claims (battery, false arrest, malicious prosecution) & municipal/training claims | Bodager: state claims viable if federal immunity inapplicable; alleged failure to train Waverly | Defendants: statutory immunity under R.C. Chapter 2744 shields employees and municipality; plaintiff did not press training claim in assignments of error | Summary judgment affirmed on state claims — defendants immune under R.C. 2744; failure-to-train argument not properly raised on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (use-of-force reasonableness standard)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (perspective of reasonable officer; caution against hindsight)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified immunity framework adjustments)
- Atwater v. Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (officer may arrest for minor offense committed in presence)
- Virginia v. Moore, 533 U.S. 164 (state statutory limits on arrest do not alter Fourth Amendment analysis)
- Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (probable cause suffices for arrest under Fourth Amendment)
- Ziegler v. Aukerman, 512 F.3d 777 (elements of §1983 claim)
- Miller v. Sanilac County, 606 F.3d 240 (probable-cause standard in §1983 wrongful-arrest suits)
- Burchett v. Kiefer, 310 F.3d 937 (resistance to handcuffing can justify force)
- Bennett v. Krakowski, 671 F.3d 553 (deference to on-the-spot officer judgments)
- Logsdon v. Hains, 492 F.3d 334 (probable cause requirement for §1983 wrongful-arrest claims)