98 F.4th 521
4th Cir.2024Background
- Maryland State Trooper Caraballo struck 15-year-old Cameron Lewis multiple times in the head during an arrest in 2018 after responding to a domestic incident.
- Lewis, who was unarmed and at least partially subdued during the altercation, filed suit alleging excessive force under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and Maryland law.
- Caraballo moved for summary judgment, claiming qualified immunity (federal law) and statutory immunity (Maryland Tort Claims Act), both of which were denied by the district court.
- Body camera footage captured the incident, but did not conclusively show whether Lewis was resisting or fully subdued at key moments.
- On interlocutory appeal, the Fourth Circuit reviewed only the legal questions, accepting the facts in the light most favorable to Lewis (the non-moving party).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Caraballo's force excessive under 4th Am? | Caraballo used disproportionate and unnecessary force on a subdued, unarmed minor. | Force was necessary to subdue a resisting and potentially violent suspect. | A jury could find the force excessive; material fact dispute precludes summary judgment. |
| Was Lewis's right to be free from such force clearly established? | Prior 4th Circuit cases made clear the right was established for subdued/non-dangerous arrestees. | No clearly established law prohibited force against only "partially subdued" suspects. | Majority: Right was clearly established; Dissent: Not sufficiently clear in 2018 under facts here. |
| Is Caraballo entitled to Maryland statutory immunity? | Head strikes amounted to at least gross negligence or malice, stripping immunity. | Actions were within scope of duties, without gross negligence or malice. | Material factual dispute; jury must decide gross negligence/malice; immunity denied at this stage. |
| Can the appellate court review fact disputes at this stage? | Disputed facts must be taken in plaintiff’s favor unless no reasonable jury could believe them. | Video record contradicts the plaintiff’s version, no genuine fact issue. | Video is inconclusive; Scott v. Harris exception not triggered. |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (objective reasonableness standard for use of force by police)
- Kane v. Hargis, 987 F.2d 1005 (4th Cir. 1993) (escalation of force against subdued or controlled suspect is unreasonable)
- Valladares v. Cordero, 552 F.3d 384 (4th Cir. 2009) (head strikes against controlled, non-resistant minor is excessive)
- Estate of Jones v. City of Martinsburg, 961 F.3d 661 (4th Cir. 2020) (force against pinned, non-resisting suspect violates clearly established law)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (video evidence must utterly discredit plaintiff’s version to override fact disputes at summary judgment)