City of Saint Albans v. Botkins
228 W. Va. 393
| W. Va. | 2011Background
- Botkins alleged excessive force by Saint Albans officers Tagayun and Truitt during a 2008 drive-thru confrontation.
- Two officers (one patrol, one reserve) encountered six males; two of the six carried potential weapons.
- Botkins testified he had a broken arm in a cast and did not threaten; officers ordered group to the ground.
- Botkins claims Tagayun pulled him to the ground, knelt him, struck him with the gun butt, kicked him, and he was hospitalized.
- Appellants moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity and statutory immunity; circuit court denied.
- Interlocutory appeal limited to the qualified immunity ruling; court ultimately reversed the denial on immunity grounds and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the circuit court apply the correct qualified immunity standard? | Botkins argues the court misapplied Saucier/Hutchison standard. | Appellants contend the court used the correct two-step standard and should grant immunity. | Reversed on qualified immunity grounds; correct legal standard applied for disposition. |
| Are there genuine predicate facts precluding summary disposition on immunity? | Botkins asserts facts show a constitutional violation and lack of clearly established right. | Appellants contend no genuine dispute exists; objective reasonableness supports immunity. | No bona fide dispute about predicate facts; however, court held immunity available; remanded for proceedings on non-immunity issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (two-step qualified immunity framework; not required to defer to Graham for immunity inquiry)
- Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987) (requires a need for a particularized showing of unlawfulness for clearly established rights)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (objective reasonableness standard for excessive force claims)
- Hutchison v. City of Huntington, 198 W.Va. 139 (1996) (two-part inquiry for immunity; ultimate legal question ripe for summary disposition when no genuine factual dispute)
- Bennett v. Coffman, 178 W.Va. 500 (1987) (immunity as entitlement from suit; framework for public officials performing discretionary functions)
- State v. Chase Securities, Inc., 188 W.Va. 356 (1992) (refined Bennett standard; immunity not available for fraudulent, malicious or oppressive acts)