Keith Cockrell v. City of Cincinnati
468 F. App'x 491
| 6th Cir. | 2012Background
- Cockrell jaywalked; Hall pursued him toward arrest.
- Cockrell fled; Hall deployed the X26 TASER in probe mode, immobilizing him and causing facial, chest, and arm injuries.
- The X26 TASER delivers a high-voltage, low-current shock; drive-stun mode does not override the central nervous system.
- Cincinnati’s use-of-force policy requires reasonable force and warnings where feasible, with tasers guided for self-defense or to control actively resisting subjects.
- Cockrell filed §1983 suit in 2010 alleging Fourth Amendment excessive-force; Hall moved to dismiss on qualified immunity, which the district court denied.
- The court ultimately held it was clearly established in July 2008 that tasing a fleeing, non-violent misdemeanant was unconstitutional, which the Sixth Circuit reversed on the clearly-established prong.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hall violated Cockrell’s Fourth Amendment rights by tasing a fleeing non-violent misdemeanant. | Cockrell argues the taser was excessive force. | Hall argues qualified immunity applies; right was not clearly established. | No clear established right in 2008; qualified immunity applies. |
| Whether the right not to be tased when fleeing was clearly established at the time. | Cockrell contends the right was clearly established by prior cases. | Hall contends the right was not clearly established in 2008. | Not clearly established in 2008; Hall entitled to qualified immunity. |
| What standard governs whether a right is clearly established for qualified immunity here. | Right must be clearly established by precedent at that level of generality. | General propositions inadequate; must be fact-specific. | Court adopts nuanced standard: avoid high-level generalities; need specific contours in 2008. |
| How the case fits into taser-use-forces precedent (resisting vs non-resisting, fleeing). | Fleeing non-violent misdemeanant should not be tasered. | Flight factors may justify non-deadly force; not clearly established. | Fleeing alone does not defeat qualified immunity; not clearly established. |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (objective reasonableness in use of force standard)
- Casey v. City of Federal Heights, 509 F.3d 1278 (10th Cir. 2007) (considering whether fleeing by arrestee affects clearly established law)
- Mattos v. Agarano, 661 F.3d 433 (9th Cir.2011) (tasers; lack of warning can affect reasonableness; en banc)
- Bryan v. MacPherson, 630 F.3d 805 (9th Cir. 2010) (warning and resistance influence clearly established law)
- Landis v. Baker, 297 F. App’x 453 (6th Cir. 2008) (taser against subdued or non-resisting defendants; clearly established questions)