95 F.4th 436
6th Cir.2024Background
- Jorden Brown, who was wanted on a warrant, fled from Officer Giles during a police encounter; Giles tased Brown while he fled, causing Brown to fall and suffer head injuries.
- Brown sued Giles, the police chief, and the municipality under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging excessive force and unconstitutional policies.
- Brown attached bodycam footage to his complaint illustrating the incident.
- The district court dismissed all claims, granting qualified immunity to the defendants, finding no violation of clearly established law.
- Brown argued two uses of excessive force: the initial tasing as he fled (with a probe hitting his head) and an alleged second use of the taser after Brown was incapacitated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether tasing a fleeing suspect was excessive force | Tasing Brown in the head during a nonviolent flight was excessive, especially as it caused serious injury | Tasers are non-lethal; tasing fleeing suspects is generally permissible | Tasing was not clearly established as excessive in these circumstances; qualified immunity applies |
| Whether use of force after incapacitation occurred | Giles tased again after Brown was down and unable to resist | Video shows only one tase; no second use | Video refutes Brown's claim; no plausible excessive force |
| Municipal and supervisory liability | Department policies/customs enabled the constitutional violation | No underlying violation; claims fail | No underlying violation; claims against others dismissed |
| Standard for clearly established law under qualified immunity | Law was clear enough via consensus or obviousness | Only binding, on-point precedent counts | Majority: Brown failed to show law was clearly established; Concurrence: Robust consensus may suffice, but not met here |
Key Cases Cited
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified immunity framework)
- Bell v. City of Southfield, 37 F.4th 362 (binding precedent required for clearly established law)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (reasonableness and split-second judgment in excessive force)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (video evidence can override allegations)
- D.C. v. Wesby, 583 U.S. 48 (clearly established law requires a clearly defined right)
- Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603 (defining controlling versus persuasive authority in § 1983 context)
- Rivas-Villegas v. Cortesluna, 595 U.S. 1 (robust consensus requirement for clearly established law)
- Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194 (general standards can sometimes provide clear guidance)
- Robinette v. Barnes, 854 F.2d 909 (deadly force is justified only with immediate threat of serious harm)