E.W. v. Rosemary Dolgos
884 F.3d 172
| 4th Cir. | 2018Background
- Ten-year-old E.W. was recorded on a school-bus video kicking and then standing over and striking another student three days before being summoned to the school office. Both students were suspended from the bus.
- Deputy sheriff/school resource officer Rosemary Dolgos reviewed the video, interviewed both girls, observed bruising on the victim, and spoke with school administrators. Dolgos concluded she had probable cause to take E.W. into custody for assault.
- In a closed office, with two administrators present, Dolgos handcuffed the calm, compliant ten‑year‑old behind the back, inserting two fingers to avoid excessive tightness; E.W. cried and apologized, and Dolgos removed the cuffs after about two minutes and released E.W. to her mother while notifying juvenile authorities.
- E.W. sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Fourth Amendment excessive force/unreasonable seizure), Article 26 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, and common-law assault/battery.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Dolgos; the Fourth Circuit affirmed on qualified immunity for the § 1983 claim and MTCA immunity for state-law claims, while also holding the handcuffing was objectively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment (but not clearly established at the time).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether handcuffing E.W. violated the Fourth Amendment (excessive force) | Handcuffing a calm, compliant 10‑year‑old in school for an incident three days earlier was objectively unreasonable and excessive. | Handcuffing was a reasonable, routine safety measure incident to a custodial arrest based on probable cause. | Court: Handcuffing was excessive under Graham totality (age, school context, no flight/resistance, no immediate threat), so constitutional violation shown. |
| Whether the right violated was clearly established for qualified immunity | A reasonable officer should have known handcuffing a small, compliant elementary student under these facts was unlawful. | Existing precedent recognizes handcuffing incident to arrest and does not clearly prohibit this conduct; no controlling authority on these facts. | Court: Right was not clearly established at the time; Dolgos entitled to qualified immunity on § 1983 claim. |
| Whether MTCA immunity (no malice or gross negligence) shields Dolgos for state claims | Excessive force/battery and state constitutional claims apply; liability available under Maryland law. | Even if force unreasonable, facts do not support malice or gross negligence; actions were aimed at safety/discipline. | Court: Insufficient evidence of actual malice or gross negligence; MTCA immunity applies; state claims dismissed. |
| Scope of review and relevance of context (school/age) | School setting and child's age are highly relevant and weigh against reasonableness of handcuffing. | Handcuffing juveniles for transport is a lawful safety practice; totality of circumstances (probable cause, transport plan) justify restraint. | Court: School context and age are relevant; they factor into excessive‑force Graham analysis and undercut reasonableness. |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (Sup. Ct.) (objective‑reasonableness standard for excessive force)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (Sup. Ct.) (qualified immunity framework)
- Brown v. Gilmore, 278 F.3d 362 (4th Cir.) (handcuffing usually reasonable incident to arrest)
- Turmon v. Jordan, 405 F.3d 202 (4th Cir.) (obvious excessive‑force violation where compliant person was handcuffed and subjected to other force)
- Sonora v. City of Phoenix, 769 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir.) (handcuffing a calm, nonresponsive 11‑year‑old was unreasonable)
- Tekle v. United States, 511 F.3d 839 (9th Cir.) (consideration of juvenile age in excessive‑force analysis)