Crawford v. Geiger
131 F. Supp. 3d 703
N.D. Ohio2015Background
- Nighttime encounter (Aug 26, 2012) at a warehouse after a 911 report; Mark Crawford (owner) and Brendon Reed arrived armed; Crawford repeatedly identified himself and said he was armed.
- Deputy Donavin Geiger approached covertly with a spotlight and canine, did not identify himself, demanded they drop guns and threatened to shoot; Crawford and Reed initially pointed weapons then disarmed and raised hands after hearing radio traffic.
- Geiger (with Officer Evilsizer) slammed Crawford onto the truck and handcuffed him; Sergeant Hart struck Debra Ornelas (Crawford’s sister) and Sgt. Hart and Deputy Lee forced Reed to the ground and handcuffed him; all three were taken to jail for hours.
- Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for unlawful arrest/detention, excessive force, failure to intervene, conspiracy, First Amendment right to record, and state tort claims; supervisory and municipal defendants were previously dismissed.
- At summary judgment the court accepts plaintiffs’ factual version for purposes of deciding material factual disputes; defendants seek qualified immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Leave to amend dismissed claims (failure to intervene, conspiracy, state torts) | Newly discovered facts justify repleading those dismissed claims | Amendment would be futile; claims lack requisite factual specificity or are duplicative | Denied — amendment would be futile; failure-to-intervene and conspiracy inadequately pleaded; state claims duplicative |
| First Amendment: right to openly record police | Plaintiffs assert a clearly established First Amendment right to film police in public | Defendants claim qualified immunity because the right is not clearly established in this circuit | Qualified immunity granted for First Amendment claim — right recognized by other circuits but not sufficiently "clearly established" here |
| Fourth Amendment: unlawful arrest/detention (probable cause) | Plaintiffs say arrests lacked probable cause after they disarmed and identified themselves | Defendants argue officers reasonably relied on Geiger’s assessment and on-scene danger (officer information) | Mixed: Evilsizer entitled to qualified immunity (relied on Geiger); Geiger not entitled to immunity on unlawful arrest; Lee and Hart depend on disputed facts — summary judgment denied as to them |
| Fourth Amendment: excessive force | Plaintiffs say force was used after they were subdued and posed no threat | Defendants assert force was reasonable under the circumstances | Qualified immunity denied for excessive force for arresting officers — excessive-force right clearly established and factual disputes preclude summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Tech. Servs., 504 U.S. 451 (accept non-movant facts for summary judgment)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden-shifting)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (genuine issue for trial standard)
- Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility requirement for pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standards)
- Turner v. Scott, 119 F.3d 425 (6th Cir. failure-to-intervene elements)
- Bazzi v. City of Dearborn, 658 F.3d 598 (civil conspiracy requirements)
- Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (news gathering and First Amendment)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (qualified immunity two-step)
- Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (clearly established right standard)
- United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221 (reasonable reliance on fellow officer information)
- Leonard v. Robinson, 477 F.3d 347 (no immunity where no reasonably competent officer would find probable cause)
- Chappell v. City of Cleveland, 585 F.3d 901 (officer identification not always dispositive)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (objective reasonableness factors for excessive force)