Mark Crawford v. Donavin Geiger
656 F. App'x 190
6th Cir.2016Background
- Nighttime 911 call about a possible break-in at Crawford’s Furniture; owner’s relatives (Crawford, Reed, Ornelas) went to investigate armed; deputies and other officers responded.
- Deputy Geiger encountered Crawford and Reed in the dark, ordered them to drop guns, and (per plaintiffs’ version) slammed Crawford’s head against a truck while they were complying.
- Officer Evilsizer arrived moments later, assisted Geiger in handcuffing and escorting Crawford; his only asserted contact with plaintiffs was helping handcuff Crawford and pointing his gun.
- Sergeant Hart arrived, pushed Ornelas (plaintiff) in the chest and shoved/forced Reed to the ground and handcuffed him; facts dispute whether Reed was reaching for a phone and whether he presented any threat.
- Plaintiffs sued for Fourth Amendment excessive force, unlawful seizure / false arrest, and First Amendment claims (the latter dismissed). District court denied qualified immunity for Hart and Evilsizer; both appealed.
- Sixth Circuit reversed as to Evilsizer (qualified immunity granted) and affirmed denial as to Hart (qualified immunity denied) and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Evilsizer used excessive force in handcuffing Crawford | Evilsizer actively participated in excessive force because Geiger had already subdued Crawford and handcuffing was unnecessary | Evilsizer only assisted in handcuffing after arriving in response to a burglary call and seeing Crawford armed and engaged in a confrontation | Evilsizer entitled to qualified immunity; assistance in handcuffing was objectively reasonable |
| Whether Hart’s shove of Ornelas was an unlawful seizure | Ornelas: Hart’s shove was a physical seizure without reasonable suspicion | Hart: shove was a minor crowd-control move or justified to separate parties | Hart seized Ornelas; jury could find no reasonable suspicion; qualified immunity denied |
| Whether Hart used excessive force on Ornelas | Ornelas: she was unarmed, nonthreatening and not resisting when shoved | Hart: use of force reasonable to control scene and separate people | Jury could find force unreasonable; right to be free from force when nonresisting was clearly established; qualified immunity denied |
| Whether Hart had probable cause to arrest Reed / used excessive force on Reed | Reed: he was thrown to ground and arrested without probable cause while reaching for his phone or complying | Hart: Reed chest-bumped or reached for an object near weapons; had reason to secure scene and arrest | A reasonable jury could find no probable cause and no threat; qualified immunity denied on false-arrest and excessive-force claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified-immunity two-step inquiry)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (objective-reasonableness test for excessive force)
- Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466 (2015) (perspective of reasonable officer on the scene)
- United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980) (circumstances indicating seizure)
- United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984) (seizure defined as meaningful interference)
- Binay v. Bettendorf, 601 F.3d 640 (6th Cir. 2010) (limits on holding officers liable for others’ conduct)