Perez Ex Rel. Estate of Arango v. Suszczynski
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 407
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Pre-dawn June 7, 2012: deputies responded to an altercation at a sports bar; Victor Arango was a bystander in the parking lot and went to the ground when officers ordered people down.
- Witnesses for the Estate stated Arango was prostrate, compliant, and had his hands behind his back when shot twice in the back by Deputy Michael Suszczynski from about 12–18 inches away.
- A handgun was found on the ground about ten feet away; witness testimony (credited at summary judgment stage) indicated a deputy had removed or thrown the gun prior to the shooting.
- Suszczynski shot Arango; the Estate (Karen Perez, personal representative) brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 excessive-force claim under the Fourth Amendment.
- District court denied Suszczynski’s summary judgment motion asserting qualified immunity; Suszczynski appealed interlocutorily, challenging denial on qualified immunity grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether, taking the Estate’s version of facts, Suszczynski violated the Fourth Amendment by using deadly force | Perez: Arango was compliant, unarmed, not resisting; shooting him in the back was objectively unreasonable and excessive force | Suszczynski: he reasonably believed deadly force was necessary because of a perceived threat (Arango had a gun) | Held: Under Estate’s version, use of deadly force on a prostrate, unarmed, compliant suspect violated the Fourth Amendment |
| Whether the right violated was clearly established at the time of the shooting | Perez: Supreme Court and Eleventh Circuit precedent clearly prohibit deadly force against nondangerous, nonresisting suspects; officers had fair warning | Suszczynski: exigent-danger facts made the law unclear or justified his belief deadly force was lawful | Held: Right was clearly established; the unprovoked shooting of a compliant suspect is "obviously" unconstitutional, so qualified immunity does not apply |
| Whether appellate court has jurisdiction to review denial of qualified immunity given disputed facts | Perez: interlocutory appeal proper because appeal includes a legal question (clearly established law) | Suszczynski: contesting factual sufficiency defeats interlocutory jurisdiction | Held: Court has jurisdiction because appeal raises disputed legal issue about clearly established law despite factual disputes |
| Whether the Estate’s factual account is so implausible that it can be rejected at summary judgment | Perez: Estate’s witnesses are not blatantly contradicted by record; their account must be credited | Suszczynski: deputies’ accounts contradict Estate’s version and undermine it | Held: Estate’s account is not blatantly contradicted; court must credit it at this stage and may not resolve credibility disputes on interlocutory review |
Key Cases Cited
- Lee v. Ferraro, 284 F.3d 1188 (11th Cir. 2002) (standard for reviewing denial of qualified immunity and treating disputed facts at interlocutory stage)
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) (deadly force impermissible where suspect poses no immediate threat; cannot seize unarmed nondangerous suspect by shooting him)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (Fourth Amendment excessive-force analysis requires objective reasonableness)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (qualified immunity protects officials unless they violate clearly established rights)
- Morton v. Kirkwood, 707 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 2013) (deadly-force factors and prohibition on shooting subdued, nonresisting suspects)
- Mercado v. City of Orlando, 407 F.3d 1152 (11th Cir. 2005) (analysis of reasonable belief, threat assessment, and qualified immunity with armed suspects)
- Smith v. Mattox, 127 F.3d 1416 (11th Cir. 1997) (denying qualified immunity where officer used force against a docile suspect)
- Priester v. City of Riviera Beach, 208 F.3d 919 (11th Cir. 2000) (deadly force limits and excessive-force precedent)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (courts may disregard versions of facts blatantly contradicted by record, e.g., video evidence)
- Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299 (1996) (interlocutory appealability of qualified immunity denials)