Dunlap-Banks v. City of Fayetteville
5:22-cv-00425
| E.D.N.C. | Dec 2, 2024Background
- Plaintiff Ja’Lana Dunlap-Banks was stopped and detained by Fayetteville police during an active search for a violent fugitive (Page) near the area where plaintiff was driving.
- Plaintiff drove off-road into a field near the area of interest, appeared nervous, and repeatedly refused to provide identification despite officers’ requests.
- Police believed plaintiff may have been assisting the fugitive’s escape, detained her, removed her from her vehicle, and briefly handcuffed her (approx. 15 minutes, total detention 30 minutes), but ultimately found no connection and released her with a warning.
- Plaintiff suffered minor hand injuries, hyperventilation, and vomiting during the encounter and alleged excessive force and unlawful seizure, as well as First Amendment retaliation for recording the incident.
- Plaintiff brought federal and state claims, including § 1983 claims for false arrest, excessive force, and free speech retaliation, as well as several state law torts and a negligent hiring claim against the city.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting qualified immunity and immunity from state tort liability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fourth Amendment - False Arrest/Seizure | Detention was not supported by reasonable suspicion or probable cause; excessive duration | Reasonable suspicion due to context and plaintiff's conduct; detention and length justified | For defendants: Actions were justified, reasonable suspicion existed, detention scope reasonable, and qualified immunity applies |
| Fourth Amendment - Excessive Force | Use of force (removal, handcuffing, forceful handling, throwing phone) was unnecessary and excessive | Use of force was objectively reasonable, proportionate to situation, minor injury only | For defendants: Force used was objectively reasonable and proportional; qualified immunity applies |
| First Amendment - Retaliation for Recording | Officers escalated force, seized and threw phone due to plaintiff’s recording activity | No retaliation; removal predates recording; no clear causal connection; right not clearly established | For defendants: No clearly established right to record or be free from retaliation at time; qualified immunity applies |
| State Law Torts & City Liability | Officers acted maliciously and with excessive force; city negligently hired/supervised | Public official and governmental immunity preclude tort claims; no waiver by city | For defendants: Immunities bar all claims; summary judgment granted for state law claims and city |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (objective reasonableness standard for excessive force)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (reasonableness of investigatory stop/Terry stop)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (genuine issue of material fact standard)
- Hiibel v. Sixth Jud. Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 177 (identification in investigatory stop)
- Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (probable cause for arrest)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified immunity for government officials)
- Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389 (proportionality in use of force analysis)