Patricia Juanita Wate v. Kenneth Kubler
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 18365
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- On March 17, 2012, James Barnes (5'10", 290 lbs) acted erratically at a Florida beach; DEP Officer Tactuk struggled with and struck him while attempting to restrain him in the water and on the shore.
- Barnes was eventually handcuffed in an awkward/contorted position and lay face down and immobilized; bystanders reported he appeared to calm and be "still" at times during the encounter.
- Pinellas County Deputy Kubler arrived, assisted in restraining Barnes, warned him, and deployed his TASER five times over roughly two minutes (activations of 5, 3, 5, 4, and 5 seconds) after handcuffs had been applied.
- After multiple TASER applications Barnes became unresponsive; officers removed handcuffs, performed CPR, and rescue arrived; Barnes died two days later; medical examiner listed asphyxia with contributory blunt trauma and restraint; TASER probe punctures were on his back.
- Plaintiff (Barnes’s personal representative) sued Kubler under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Fourth Amendment excessive force; the district court denied Kubler qualified immunity on summary judgment, and Kubler appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kubler's repeated TASER deployments during the two‑minute window constituted excessive force under the Fourth Amendment | Barnes argues the first one or two TASER uses (if any) might have been justified, but subsequent shocks occurred after he was handcuffed, immobile, and no longer resisting, making further force gratuitous | Kubler contends Barnes continued to resist and pose a risk throughout the period, justifying repeated TASER use | The court held that, construing disputed facts for Plaintiff, by the third TASER Barnes was handcuffed and immobile, so further shocks were unnecessary and could constitute excessive force |
| Whether the right violated was clearly established at the time (qualified immunity) | Barnes argues Eleventh Circuit precedent gave fair warning that using severe force on a handcuffed, non‑resisting arrestee is unconstitutional | Kubler argues the facts were disputed and that a reasonable officer could believe continued TASER use was lawful given perceived resistance | The court held binding precedent (Lee, Hadley, Oliver, etc.) clearly established that repeatedly tasing a handcuffed, nonresisting arrestee is unconstitutional, so qualified immunity was denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (standard for objective reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment)
- Lee v. Ferraro, 284 F.3d 1188 (11th Cir. 2002) (force on secured/handcuffed arrestee was plainly excessive)
- Hadley v. Gutierrez, 526 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2008) (gratuitous force against handcuffed, nonresisting arrestee unlawful)
- Oliver v. Fiorino, 586 F.3d 898 (11th Cir. 2009) (repeated TASER deployments on immobilized nonthreatening individual unreasonable)
- Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S. Ct. 1861 (2014) (on summary judgment courts must view evidence in plaintiff's favor when assessing qualified immunity)