Charles Austin v. Redford Township Police Depart
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 16432
| 6th Cir. | 2012Background
- On Aug. 5, 2005, Officer Riley attempted to pull over Charles Austin for speeding; Austin fled, leading to a high-speed pursuit ending at a dead end.
- Riley, Paull (K-9 officer), and Morgan encountered Austin; Riley used a Taser, Paull deployed a police dog, and Morgan later used a Taser.
- Austin exited his car, raised his hands, and a struggle ensued with officers restraining him on the ground and handcuffing him.
- Video evidence shows Riley's initial Taser deployment; Paull directed the dog after Austin moved back toward Riley; Morgan administered a second Taser drive-stun.
- Austin later complained of breathing trouble; he was transported and charged; he pled no contest to some charges.
- The district court denied qualified immunity for Riley’s subsequent Taser use, Paull’s dog, and Morgan’s Taser; the district court granted Riley immunity for the initial Taser use.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the officers violated a clearly established right by their use of force. | Austin’s restraint after subdual violated rights. | Disputed facts show subdued suspect; force reasonable. | No, disputed facts preclude summary judgment on some uses. |
| Whether Riley’s second Taser use on a subdued, nonthreatening suspect was unconstitutional. | Use of force on subdued subject is unlawful. | Disputed whether Austin was subdued at the time. | Affirmed district court: factual dispute supports immunity denial for Riley’s second Taser. |
| Whether Paull’s dog deployment violated clearly established rights. | Dog attack unjustified. | Dog deployment supported by perceived threat. | Affirmed district court: factual record supports potential excessive force. |
| Whether Morgan’s two Taser drives for compliance violated clearly established rights. | Tasers used to gain compliance when non-threatening. | Drive-stun necessary to obtain compliance. | Affirmed district court: Morgan should have known such use was unreasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (U.S. 2007) (standard for reviewing videotape evidence in excessive-force cases)
- Bouggess v. Mattingly, 482 F.3d 886 (6th Cir. 2007) (use of force on subdued subjects; jury as final arbiter of immunity)
- Meirthew v. Amore, 417 F. App’x 494 (6th Cir. 2011) (unreasonable to use significant force on restrained, non-threatening subjects)
- Kijowski v. City of Niles, 372 F. App’x 595 (6th Cir. 2010) (non-lethal force on non-threatening arrestees generally excessive; exceptions)