Marcus Bounds v. Benjamin Parsons
700 F. App'x 217
4th Cir.2017Background
- Early morning April 14, 2013: Deputy Parsons found Marcus Bounds slumped in a vehicle, asked him to perform field sobriety tests; Bounds refused and was told he was under arrest.
- Bounds initially complied but then, while not yet handcuffed, tried to turn and faced Parsons; Parsons tased him twice and placed him in handcuffs.
- Three backup officers arrived; Bounds repeatedly resisted being secured in the patrol car, was tased a third time, and was brought to the ground several times. Security camera footage (distant/night) generally corroborated the officers’ account.
- Bounds was convicted in state court of DWI and resisting arrest; after serving his sentence he sued the four officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the officers, finding no genuine dispute given the video corroboration; the Fourth Circuit affirmed, relying on qualified immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment | Bounds: officers’ multiple tasings and takedowns were excessive | Officers: force was reasonable to effectuate arrest of a resisting, intoxicated suspect | Court: disputed facts resolved by record/video; in any event qualified immunity bars liability |
| Whether officers are entitled to qualified immunity | Bounds: right to be free from the force used was clearly established | Officers: at the time precedent did not clearly prohibit using force (including taser) against an actively resisting suspect | Court: not "clearly established" in 2013—officers entitled to qualified immunity |
Key Cases Cited
- Estate of Armstrong ex rel. Armstrong v. Vill. of Pinehurst, 810 F.3d 892 (4th Cir. 2016) (clarifies limits on taser use—permitted only when exigent, immediate safety risk)
- Meyers v. Baltimore Cty., Md., 713 F.3d 723 (4th Cir. 2013) (excessive-force inquiry where suspect was not actively resisting)
- Smith v. Ray, 781 F.3d 95 (4th Cir. 2015) (qualified-immunity standard and clearly-established-law discussion)
- Carroll v. Carman, 135 S. Ct. 348 (2014) (qualified immunity requires violation of a clearly established right)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) (clearly-established prong requires precedent that places question beyond debate)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (courts may decide qualified immunity by addressing either prong first)