Michael Kent v. County of Oakland
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 60
| 6th Cir. | 2016Background
- Michael Kent discovered his father unresponsive at home; EMTs arrived and, lacking DNR paperwork, intended to attach an AED to check for signs of life.
- Kent objected vocally and physically (yelling, flailing hands); EMT Oryszczak told deputies he feared Kent would interfere with treatment.
- Deputies Lopez and Maher ordered Kent to calm down; Lopez warned he would use a Taser if Kent did not comply; Kent said, “Go ahead and taze me, then.”
- Lopez deployed a five‑second Taser in dart mode; Kent fell, was handcuffed, remained briefly restrained while probes stayed attached, and the AED assessment later confirmed the father was deceased.
- Kent sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (excessive force and failure to intervene) and state assault/battery; the district court denied deputies’ motions for qualified and governmental immunity.
- The Sixth Circuit, viewing facts in plaintiff’s favor for this interlocutory appeal, affirmed denial of qualified and governmental immunity, holding the Taser use objectively unreasonable and clearly established as unlawful under the circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lopez’s use of a Taser violated the Fourth Amendment (excessive force) | Kent: he was not under arrest, posed no safety threat, had hands raised/back to wall, and thus tasing was unreasonable | Deputies: Kent’s verbal hostility and interference with EMTs created a perceived emergency and threat justifying force | Court: Use of the Taser was objectively unreasonable under the totality of circumstances; excessive force |
| Whether the right not to be tased in these circumstances was clearly established | Kent: Sixth Circuit precedent (including Goodwin, Grawey) already made tasing nonresisting or subdued persons unlawful | Deputies: No controlling precedent in community‑caretaker/medical‑aid context bars tasing to secure scene for EMTs | Court: Right was clearly established by existing Sixth Circuit precedent; qualified immunity denied |
| Whether Deputy Maher is liable for failure to intervene | Kent: Maher was present, saw the warning, could have prevented the tasing | Maher: Tasing was brief; she had no realistic opportunity to intervene | Court: Maher not entitled to immunity on failure‑to‑intervene claim; jury question exists given her proximity and opportunity |
| Whether deputies are entitled to governmental (state‑law) immunity on assault/battery claims | Kent: Conduct was wanton/reckless; state immunity not available | Deputies: Actions in good faith and within duties; immunity applies | Court: Because force was excessive and conduct not in good faith, governmental immunity denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (reasonableness of force judged under Fourth Amendment totality‑of‑circumstances test)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified immunity two‑step framework; order of analysis permissive)
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (use‑of‑force reasonableness framework and balancing interests)
- Ashcroft v. al‑Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (qualified immunity: contours of right must be sufficiently clear)
- Goodwin v. City of Painesville, 781 F.3d 314 (6th Cir.) (use of Taser on noncompliant but nonthreatening person can be excessive force)
- Grawey v. Drury, 567 F.3d 302 (6th Cir.) (subdued, nonresisting detainees are protected from force; relevant to clearly established inquiry)
- Hagans v. Franklin Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, 695 F.3d 505 (6th Cir.) (qualified immunity and excessive‑force analysis; distinguishing active resistance)
- Stricker v. Township of Cambridge, 710 F.3d 350 (6th Cir.) (officer responses to perceived medical emergencies can justify certain force; factual distinction noted)
- Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305 (use of force and qualified immunity standards reaffirmed)