Plascencia v. Taylor
514 F. App'x 711
10th Cir.2013Background
- Taylor, a St. George police officer, handcuffed Plascencia during a confrontation over a missing phone at a Pizza Hut following a welfare check; the handcuffs caused pain given arthritis and led to a fall during removal from the scene.
- Plaascencia alleged a Fourth Amendment unreasonable seizure and excessive force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Taylor argued qualified immunity and absence of arrest, treating the stop as an investigative detention.
- The district court denied Taylor's summary judgment on qualified immunity; trial produced disputed facts on the seizure's duration and force, and the jury found an unlawful seizure and excessive force.
- Taylor moved for judgment as a matter of law at trial; the court denied, ruling material facts about the seizure remained disputed.
- The jury awarded $5,000 in damages to Plascencia; on appeal, Taylor challenged JMOL, jury instruction 24A, sufficiency of the evidence for excessive force, and qualified immunity, all of which this court addressed.
- The panel affirmed the district court’s rulings, holding no error in denying JMOL or admitting Instruction 24A, noting issues of sufficiency were waived for review, and concluding qualified immunity did not apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the seizure was an arrest or an investigative stop. | Plascencia; Taylor | Taylor; Taylor | Arrest not required; seizure could be an arrest; district court decision upheld |
| Whether Instruction No. 24A correctly stated the law. | Plascencia; Taylor | Taylor; Taylor | Instruction properly stated law and did not mislead jury; no reversible error |
| Whether the evidence supported excessive force verdict. | Plascencia; Taylor | Taylor; Taylor | Taylor waived Rule 50 challenge to excessive force; claim not reviewed on appeal |
| Whether Taylor is entitled to qualified immunity for the seizure claim. | Plascencia; Taylor | Taylor; Taylor | No qualified immunity; law was clearly established that handcuffing could transform Terry stop into arrest under certain circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Cortez v. McCauley, 478 F.3d 1108 (10th Cir. 2007) (identifies three encounter types and role of intrusiveness in determining stop vs. arrest; forceful means can convert to arrest)
- Morris v. Noe, 672 F.3d 1185 (10th Cir. 2012) (investigative detention and suspicions needed for stop; duration matters)
- United States v. Jones, 701 F.3d 1300 (10th Cir. 2012) (recognizes evolving categories from stop to arrest)
- United States v. Shareef, 100 F.3d 1491 (10th Cir. 1996) (use of force can escalate detention to arrest; handcuffs context)
- Gallegos v. City of Colorado Springs, 114 F.3d 1024 (10th Cir. 1997) (handcuffing permissible during Terry stop if reasonable for safety)
- Royer v. Florida, 460 U.S. 491 (1983) (scope of intrusion can make a stop an arrest)
- Morelli v. Webster, 552 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 2009) (hallmark factors for de facto arrest include restraint or force)