676 F. App'x 567
6th Cir.2017Background
- On Oct. 27, 2012 Officer Aaron Petitt stopped Reginald Folks for an alleged suspended license during a routine traffic stop.
- Folks was cooperative: he produced documents, asked why he was stopped, and began to open his door when ordered to exit.
- Petitt grabbed the door, forcibly pulled Folks out, grabbed his arms, spun him, and pushed him face-first into his car’s rear windshield.
- Folks sustained contusions to his face, neck, and head, was arrested, detained seven hours, and the next day the traffic citation was dismissed when Folks proved his license was not suspended.
- Folks sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Fourth Amendment excessive force) and state assault-and-battery; the district court denied Petitt qualified immunity on summary judgment, and Petitt appealed interlocutorily.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Petitt used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment | Folks: Petitt gratuitously pulled a compliant, nonresisting driver from his car and slammed him into the vehicle causing injuries | Petitt: his force was a lawful, standard arrest technique ("pinning"/"snatch" and "shove" are reasonable) | The force was objectively unreasonable; a reasonable jury could find excessive force |
| Whether the right was clearly established | Folks: case law already prohibited slamming compliant suspects into objects and pulling compliant detainees from cars | Petitt: asserted his conduct fit recognized arrest techniques and was not clearly unconstitutional | The right was clearly established in 2012 given prior Sixth Circuit precedent |
| Whether state-law immunity shields Petitt from assault-and-battery liability under Ohio Rev. Code § 2744.03(A)(6) | Folks: gratuitous force supports finding malicious, bad-faith, or wanton/reckless conduct, defeating immunity | Petitt: the conduct was within scope of employment and not malicious or in bad faith | Denial of state-law immunity was proper because a jury could find malicious/bad-faith/wanton or reckless conduct |
| Proper scope of review on interlocutory qualified immunity appeal | Plaintiff: N/A (court accepts plaintiff’s version of facts) | Petitt: appeals denial of qualified immunity; court limited to legal question accepting plaintiff’s facts | Court reviews de novo but only legal questions; confines review to whether, accepting Folks’ facts, a clearly established right was violated |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (Fourth Amendment objective reasonableness framework)
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (use-of-force reasonableness and totality-of-circumstances inquiry)
- Bass v. Robinson, 167 F.3d 1041 (slamming compliant, nonresisting suspect into object can constitute excessive force)
- Brown v. Lewis, 779 F.3d 401 (pulling a compliant detainee from car and throwing her to the ground is clearly established excessive force)
- Livermore v. Lubelan, 476 F.3d 397 (segmentation approach to excessive-force claims)
- Baker v. City of Hamilton, 471 F.3d 601 (gratuitous force may show malice or bad faith for state-law immunity analysis)
- Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (clearly established right standard for qualified immunity)