587 F. App'x 621
11th Cir.2014Background
- Bussey, Baker Acted after presenting psychotic behavior and self-inflicted wounds in an emergency department lobby.
- Nurses and doctor deemed Bussey acutely psychotic; Baker Act and restraints ordered; security anticipated force to restrain.
- Bussey fled, then returned; police arrived; officers attempted ground commands and Tasers to subdue him.
- Bussey resisted, fought, spitting and kicking; medical staff administered antipsychotics; pillow sheet used to restrain.
- Bussey died after prolonged struggle; autopsy attributed death to cocaine-excited delirium with competing expert opinions on Taser influence.
- District court granted summary judgment to most defendants; Gomez and Hewatt denied qualified immunity; on appeal, immunity reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gomez and Hewatt violated Bussey's Fourth Amendment rights | Bussey-Morice argues repeated Tasers were excessive force. | Gomez/Hewatt contend force was reasonable given resistance and risk in a hospital setting. | No clearly established violation; qualified immunity applies. |
| Whether the right was clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity | Oliver-like outrageous conduct should have put officers on notice. | No controlling case clearly established such conduct as unlawful under these facts. | Not clearly established under either the obvious-clarity or precedent-based approach. |
| Application of the two-step clearly-established standard (Saucier framework) in this context | Law was clearly established by existing precedents applying to Tasers. | Precedent did not clearly establish these facts as a constitutional violation. | Court did not find clearly established law; did not need to resolve if a violation occurred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (reaffirmed objective test for qualified immunity and order of inquiry)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (two-step framework for qualified immunity)
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985) (final decision on qualified-immunity applicability)
- Coffin v. Brandau, 642 F.3d 999 (11th Cir. 2011) (en banc treatment of clearly established rights)
- Fils v. City of Aventura, 647 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir. 2011) (obvious-clarity method for clearly established law)
- Hoyt v. Cooks, 672 F.3d 972 (11th Cir. 2012) (repeated Tasers in a mental-health crisis context; qualified immunity)
- Oliver v. Fiorino, 586 F.3d 898 (11th Cir. 2009) (distinguishes cases where excessive force is clearly proven)
- McClish v. Nugent, 483 F.3d 1231 (11th Cir. 2007) (clear-established-law standard in qualified immunity)