Linda Surratt v. Brian McClarin
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4498
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- On Aug. 20, 2013, Sherman police stopped Lesa Ann Surratt for a traffic violation; officers suspected she possessed narcotics.
- Officers arrested Surratt and passenger Monica Garza, handcuffed and seatbelted them in a patrol car; officers briefly left them unattended.
- Surratt freed her right hand, placed a small plastic baggy of narcotics in her mouth, and officers observed movement suggesting she hid something.
- Officers ordered her to open her mouth and applied pressure to her jaw/neck (described as "soft hands techniques"); a struggle ensued and Surratt ultimately became unresponsive and suffered a seizure.
- A plastic bag was later removed from Surratt’s airway; she was hospitalized, placed on life support, and died 13 days later from asphyxia due to airway obstruction.
- Surratt’s sister sued officers and the city under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law; the district court found a Fourth Amendment violation but granted qualified immunity; the Fifth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers used excessive force in attempting to remove/force open Surratt’s mouth | Surratt’s estate: pressure to jaw/neck constituted excessive, unreasonable force causing death | Officers: force was necessary to prevent destruction/ingestion of evidence (narcotics) and was not excessive under circumstances | Court assumed a constitutional violation but did not reach merits for liability because of qualified immunity |
| Whether officers are entitled to qualified immunity | Linda: prior law sufficiently clearly established that force used was unlawful | Officers: no binding precedent placed conduct beyond debate; reasonable under then-existing law | Court: officers entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiff failed to identify closely analogous precedent making the unlawfulness "beyond debate" |
| Whether existing Supreme Court/Fifth Circuit precedent clearly prohibited officers’ conduct | Plaintiff: general excessive-force principles apply and should control | Defendants: only general standards exist; need a close factual analogue to overcome qualified immunity | Court: general principles insufficient absent an "obvious case" or highly analogous precedent; plaintiff could not point to such a case |
| Relevance of precedents about bodily intrusions (e.g., blood draws) | Plaintiff: argued Schmerber undermines Espinoza as precedent | Defendants: Schmerber (blood draw) does not address force to prevent swallowing evidence; Espinoza remains relevant | Court: Schmerber does not overrule Espinoza; Espinoza supports that force to prevent ingestion may be reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Espinoza v. United States, 278 F.2d 802 (5th Cir. 1960) (officers used jaw/neck pressure to prevent suspect from swallowing narcotics and court found force no more than necessary)
- White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548 (2017) (clearly established law requires precedent placing constitutional question beyond debate)
- Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305 (2015) (emphasizes need for closely analogous precedent to overcome qualified immunity)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (establishes government-official qualified immunity standard)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (courts may decide qualified immunity questions in either order)
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966) (addressed warrantless blood draw; court here found it not to control force used to prevent swallowing evidence)