Cindy Abbott v. Sangamon County
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 1963
7th Cir.2013Background
- Abbott family sued Sangamon County, Sheriff Williamson, and Deputy Sweeney under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Fourth Amendment claims (false arrest, false imprisonment, excessive force).
- District court granted Sweeney summary judgment on all claims; County and Sheriff were dismissed.
- Court held Travis Abbott had probable cause to arrest and was protected by qualified immunity on his excessive-force claim.
- Cindy Abbott’s false-arrest/false-imprisonment claims survived, but her excessive-force claim was vacated and remanded for further proceedings.
- Key incident: animal-control officers attempted to corral a dog; Travis threatened officers; Cindy aided in bringing Travis outside; Sweeney used a taser on Travis and later tased Cindy during a confrontation in the driveway.
- On appeal, court reaffirmed qualified-immunity rulings for Sweeney on Travis’s claims and Cindy’s false-arrest/false-imprisonment claims, but vacated Cindy’s excessive-force ruling and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause/qualified immunity for Travis false arrest | Travis had no probable cause; excessive-force claim improper. | Sweeney had probable or arguable probable cause for arrest based on threats to officers; qualified immunity applies. | Probable/arguable probable cause; Sweeney entitled to qualified immunity for Travis. |
| Probable cause/qualified immunity for Cindy false arrest | Cindy lacked probable cause to be arrested for obstructing or resisting a peace officer. | Sweeney had probable/arguable probable cause to arrest Cindy and acted reasonably. | District court erred; Cindy's false-arrest/false-imprisonment claims survive under qualified immunity analysis (but see separate excessive-force issue). |
| Excessive-force: Travis’s taser use | Second taser deployments after initial subduing were excessive and not clearly established as lawful. | Taser use reasonable under totality of circumstances; not clearly established as unconstitutional. | Qualified immunity not available to Sweeney for Travis; genuine issue of material fact regarding clearly established law; remand advisable on excessive-force claim. |
| Excessive-force: Cindy’s taser use | Second taser shot was excessive given Cindy was subdued after first taser. | Second taser justified by Cindy's proximity and noncompliance; reasonable under evolving circumstances. | Cindy’s excessive-force claim presented a clearly established-law issue; court held it violated clearly established law and remanded for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mustafa v. City of Chicago, 442 F.3d 544 (7th Cir. 2006) (probable cause and reliance on credible witnesses)
- Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (U.S. 2004) (arrest may be supported by probable cause to commit any crime)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1996) (objective standard for probable cause; subjective intent irrelevant)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1989) (reasonableness of force assessed under totality of circumstances)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (U.S. 2001) (qualified immunity framework; right must be clearly established)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S. 2009) (practical approach to immunity; court may decide immunity without addressing underlying constitutional violation)