Crowell v. Kirkpatrick
400 F. App'x 592
2d Cir.2010Background
- Crowell and Kilmurray were arrested for trespass and resisting arrest; they chained themselves to a large drum and refused to free themselves.
- Officers had attempted non-forceful methods to remove them prior to taser use and warned them of potential pain.
- Plaintiffs admit they could release themselves but chose not to until prompted by warnings.
- The taser was used after other means were infeasible and as a last resort.
- The officers used drive-stun mode, causing temporary pain but no lasting injury; presence of additional protesters heightened urgency to remove them.
- District court granted summary judgment to defendants; Second Circuit affirming on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the use of force was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment | Kilmurray argues excessive force. | Defendants contend force was reasonable given circumstances. | Yes, objectively reasonable. |
| Whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity | Rights were clearly established; taser use violated rights. | No clearly established right; reasonable officers could disagree. | Entitled to qualified immunity. |
| Sequence of the qualified-immunity inquiry | Saucier sequence should apply. | Pearson permits flexibility; not mandatory. | Pearson governs; not mandatory sequence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (objective reasonableness standard for excessive force)
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) (is balancing of intrusiveness against government interests)
- Amnesty Am. v. Town of West Hartford, 361 F.3d 113 (2d Cir. 2004) (excessive force claims against protestors; not binding here but relevant framework)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (two-step inquiry for qualified immunity (clarity depends on context))
- Moore v. Vega, 371 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2004) (clarifies scope of qualified-immunity analysis)
- Walczyk v. Rio, 496 F.3d 139 (2d Cir. 2007) (reasonable-competence disagreement on legality considerations)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 129 S. Ct. 808 (2009) (reconsideration of Saucier; sequence not mandatory)
- Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194 (2004) (contextual reasonableness; on-scene assessment)