Emily Evans v. Phil Plummer
687 F. App'x 434
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Emily Evans, arrested for DUI and intoxicated, was transported to Montgomery County Jail; officers recorded the entire intake on multiple cameras.
- At booking Evans was handcuffed behind her back, acted erratically, and officers restrained and searched her; Feehan threatened to tase her and aimed a taser laser dot at her face.
- During removal of boots/socks Evans slipped or was moved from a bench and struck her head on the floor, sustaining serious injuries (subarachnoid hemorrhage, facial fractures, dental injuries) and alleged cognitive symptoms.
- Banks reported Evans resisted and that he guided her to the ground; Evans says Banks pulled her by the handcuffs, hyperextended her arm, and intentionally slammed her head-first to the floor.
- Procedural posture: district court denied Banks’s and Feehan’s motions for qualified immunity and state-law immunity; interlocutory appeal followed. The Sixth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pulling/pinning and handcuff pain by Banks violated the Fourth Amendment | Evans: Banks pulled/pinched her wrists, hyperextended arm, causing unreasonable pain | Banks: Evans was resisting; any force was reasonable and de minimis | Court: factual dispute accepted for plaintiff at this stage; appeal on these factual challenges dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (denial of immunity stands) |
| Whether Banks’s lift/takedown was excessive force (slamming head to floor) | Evans: Banks picked her up by wrists and slammed her head-first, causing severe injury | Banks: Evans slipped/fell or pushed off wall; takedown was reasonable | Court: viewing video in plaintiff’s favor, a reasonable jury could find excessive force; law was clearly established (Burgess); denial of qualified immunity to Banks affirmed |
| Whether Feehan’s aiming a taser at Evans violated the Fourth Amendment (qualified immunity) | Evans: Feehan threatened and pointed taser at her head to instill gratuitous fear — excessive force | Feehan: Pointing without firing is not clearly established as unconstitutional; incident-distinguishing cases exist | Court: No Sixth Circuit precedent clearly establishing that merely pointing a taser (without discharge) at a detainee violates the Fourth Amendment; reversed denial of qualified immunity to Feehan |
| Whether Banks and Feehan are immune under Ohio state law for wanton/reckless conduct | Evans: Conduct was wanton/reckless (conscious disregard of obvious risk) | Banks/Feehan: actions were reasonable under circumstances; Feehan contended taser not ready to fire | Court: Viewing evidence for Evans, a jury could find recklessness; district court’s denial of state-law immunity to both affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. City of Cincinnati, 736 F.3d 688 (6th Cir. 2013) (video evidence constrains appellate review of factual disputes on interlocutory qualified-immunity appeals)
- Phillips v. Roane Cty., 534 F.3d 531 (6th Cir. 2008) (limits on interlocutory review of denial of qualified immunity)
- Burgess v. Fischer, 735 F.3d 462 (6th Cir. 2013) (use of force during booking governed by Fourth Amendment; takedown of compliant detainee can be unconstitutional)
- Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466 (2015) (objective-reasonableness standard for force against pretrial detainees)
- White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548 (2017) (need for closely analogous precedent to deny qualified immunity)
- Stricker v. Township of Cambridge, 710 F.3d 350 (6th Cir. 2013) (pointing a taser in context where subject was noncompliant held reasonable)
- Dorsey v. Barber, 517 F.3d 389 (6th Cir. 2008) (pointing a firearm at suspects who disregarded commands did not violate clearly established law)
- Pray v. City of Sandusky, 49 F.3d 1154 (6th Cir. 1995) (forcibly pushing persons to floor during a mistaken search supported a Fourth Amendment violation)