Marcus Hanks v. Randall Rogers
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 5927
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- On Feb. 26, 2013 Officer Randall Rogers stopped Marcus Hanks for driving ~20 mph under the interstate speed limit; Hanks said he was looking for a lost phone and could not produce proof of insurance immediately.
- Rogers ordered Hanks out of the car; during a ~45‑second exchange Hanks moved to the rear of his vehicle, displayed empty hands on the trunk, then behind his back, and twice asked whether he was under arrest.
- Rogers had his TASER trained on Hanks and, seconds after ordering Hanks to kneel, rushed and delivered a forcible takedown (“half spear”), driving Hanks onto the trunk and then the ground; Hanks was handcuffed without resisting.
- Hanks received medical treatment for contusions, strains, and bruised ribs and alleged ongoing pain; the police department found Rogers’ takedown was not objectively reasonable and suspended him.
- Hanks sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force (Fourth Amendment); the district court granted Rogers qualified immunity on summary judgment and dismissed the claim; Hanks appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rogers used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment | Hanks: takedown was an abrupt, unnecessary use of force against a nonthreatening, passively resisting subject stopped for a minor traffic matter | Rogers: force was reasonable given noncompliance and possible safety concerns (e.g., concealed weapon) | Court: Use of force was clearly excessive and unreasonable under the facts (constitutional violation) |
| Whether Hanks showed more than de minimis injury | Hanks: contemporaneous medical treatment and ongoing pain show more than de minimis harm | Rogers: injuries were minimal and insufficient for excessive‑force claim | Court: Medical records and prescriptions suffice to show more than de minimis injury |
| Whether the right was clearly established (qualified immunity) | Hanks: Fifth Circuit precedent (e.g., Deville) and Graham standards clearly prohibit sudden overwhelming force against a nonthreatening, passively resisting motorist | Rogers: no directly on‑point controlling case; reasonable officers could disagree | Court: Law was clearly established; officers may not abruptly escalate to overwhelming force under these facts — qualified immunity denied |
| Whether a reasonable officer could perceive an immediate threat or flight risk justifying the takedown | Rogers: TASER at ready and slight movements justified force; concern about concealed weapon or vehicle as weapon | Hanks: hands were visible, facing away, no active resistance or flight attempt | Court: A reasonable officer would not have perceived an immediate threat or flight risk sufficient to justify the takedown under the recorded circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Griggs v. Brewer, 841 F.3d 308 (5th Cir. 2016) (qualified immunity standard on summary judgment)
- Deville v. Marcantel, 567 F.3d 156 (5th Cir. 2009) (officer unreasonably escalated from negotiation to force against passively resisting driver)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (video may refute plaintiff’s version of events for qualified immunity analysis)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (objective‑reasonableness test for excessive force)
- White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548 (2017) (clearly established law must be particularized; use of ‘‘obvious case’’ exception)
- Poole v. City of Shreveport, 691 F.3d 624 (5th Cir. 2012) (analysis of measured escalation in response to active resistance)
- Cooper v. Brown, 844 F.3d 517 (5th Cir. 2016) (excessive force framework and perspective of reasonable officer)
- Tarver v. City of Edna, 410 F.3d 745 (5th Cir. 2005) (declining requirement of significant injury; relevance of negotiation before force)