Estate of Armstrong Ex Rel. Armstrong v. Village of Pinehurst
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 380
| 4th Cir. | 2016Background
- Ronald Armstrong, mentally ill (bipolar disorder and paranoid schizophrenia), left a hospital evaluation; a doctor issued an involuntary commitment order as dangerous to self.
- Pinehurst officers encountered Armstrong near the hospital; he behaved oddly but was initially calm and cooperative; after the commitment order was finalized he sat and wrapped himself around a stop-sign post, refusing to release it.
- Three police officers and two hospital security guards surrounded him; after a ~30-second impasse, Officer Gatling warned and then deployed his TASER in drive-stun mode several times over ~2 minutes; the tasing increased resistance.
- Security guards assisted, officers pulled Armstrong off the post, restrained him (handcuffs and leg shackles), and left him briefly face-down; he became unresponsive, received CPR, was transported to the hospital, and died.
- Appellant (estate) sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force; district court granted summary judgment to officers based on qualified immunity; Fourth Circuit affirms overall but holds the seizure involved excessive force while also finding qualified immunity applies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did officers use excessive force in seizing Armstrong (Fourth Amendment)? | Tasing a mentally ill, noncriminal, stationary, nonviolent resister constituted objectively unreasonable, disproportionate force. | Use of TASER was justified to prevent flight/endangerment given Armstrong’s prior elopement, erratic behavior, size, proximity to a roadway, and active resistance. | Yes — viewing facts in plaintiff’s favor, tasing was unreasonably excessive under Graham factors. |
| Are officers entitled to qualified immunity despite a constitutional violation? | Rights were clearly established such that reasonable officers would know repeated tasing of a stationary, nonviolent detainee was unconstitutional. | Circuit conflict and precedent left the law unsettled; reasonable officers could have believed tasing lawful. | Yes — right was not sufficiently clearly established on the facts as of April 23, 2011; qualified immunity applies. |
| What standard governs TASER use in similar contexts? | TASERs inflict severe pain and risk injury; use must be tied to an exigent safety threat that the TASER can mitigate. | TASERs are a nonlethal compliance tool and can be used where an individual resists and may flee or endanger self/others. | TASERs may be used only when an objectively reasonable officer faces an immediate safety risk that the TASER is likely to mitigate; stationary, nonviolent resistance without exigency does not justify tasing. |
| Can mental illness and pickup-only detention goals (danger-to-self) affect force calculus? | Yes — when seizure aims to prevent self-harm, government interest in using force that may injure the subject is diminished; officers must de-escalate and adjust force downward. | Officers must protect the subject and public; mental illness and erratic conduct can justify more assertive measures to prevent flight/harm. | Court: mental illness and commitment-for-self-harm reduce government interest in harmful force; officers should consider de-escalation and are constrained from using force likely to worsen the subject’s condition. |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (sets Fourth Amendment objective reasonableness test for excessive force)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (permits courts to decide qualified immunity before the merits)
- Meyers v. Baltimore County, 713 F.3d 723 (taser deployments unconstitutional when suspect secured and no continuing threat)
- Bailey v. Kennedy, 349 F.3d 731 (taser/use-of-force principles; securing a suspect before force matters)
- Orem v. Rephann, 523 F.3d 442 (taser use unreasonable where facts showed no immediate danger)
- Park v. Shiflett, 250 F.3d 843 (pepper spray excessive against minimally threatening conduct)
- Bryan v. MacPherson, 630 F.3d 805 (taser effects and need to tie deployment to safety risk)
- Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305 (clarifies need for clearly established law for qualified immunity)