Rutha Carroll v. Harris County
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 15098
5th Cir.2015Background
- Herman Barnes, a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic, was encountered outside his home by Harris County Deputy Viruette after complaints of mailbox vandalism; Barnes behaved oddly and could not state his address.
- Viruette followed Barnes into his garage and grabbed his arm to prevent him from entering the house; Barnes pulled away and entered his residence, where Viruette pursued without a warrant.
- Inside, Viruette deployed a Taser (multiple cycles recorded) and later used drive-stun applications; backup deputies arrived and used batons, kicks, tackles, punches, and additional Taser applications during a protracted struggle.
- Barnes was eventually handcuffed (one cuff initially loose), later went limp, was transported to a hospital, and was pronounced dead; the medical examiner ruled the manner of death a homicide related to physical restraint during psychotic delirium.
- After a trial that ended in a mistrial, the deputies renewed Rule 50(b) motions asserting qualified immunity; the district court denied them and the deputies appealed interlocutorily.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Initial seizure/detention (reasonable suspicion) | Virk (Carrolls) — detention was without reasonable suspicion | Viruette — had reasonable suspicion based on mailbox-vandalism complaints, evasive behavior, and incoherent answers | Held: Viruette entitled to qualified immunity; detention was not objectively unreasonable (Terry stop occurred when arm was grabbed) |
| Warrantless entry into home (exigent/hot pursuit) | Carrolls — entry was an unreasonable warrantless search of the home | Viruette — entered in hot pursuit to prevent evasion of detention/arrest; law on misdemeanor hot pursuit not clearly established | Held: Qualified immunity for Viruette because law re: hot pursuit of misdemeanant was not clearly established in 2006 |
| Use of force to subdue unarmed, seated resistive subject (Taser, baton, kicks) | Carrolls — force was excessive and caused death | Deputies — used escalating, nonlethal force in response to active resistance; believed force reasonable to gain compliance | Held: Viruette, Celestial, Ellington entitled to qualified immunity for force used to get Barnes to the ground; use of Tasers on a seated, noncompliant subject was not clearly established as excessive in 2006 |
| Use of force after restraint/handcuffing (continued Tasers, strikes) | Carrolls — deputies continued excessive force after Barnes was subdued/handcuffed | Deputies — force ceased when suspect stopped resisting; any further force was reasonable given perceived ongoing resistance and safety concerns | Held: Not entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law for force after Barnes was subdued; appellate court lacked jurisdiction over factual disputes and dismissed those appeals for lack of jurisdiction (must be resolved by district court/jury) |
| Bystander failure-to-intervene (Deputy Sims) | Carrolls — Sims failed to intervene to stop excessive force | Sims — was not present for the entire incident and had no opportunity to prevent harm | Held: Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because qualified-immunity appeal depends on disputed facts about Sims’s presence and opportunity to act |
Key Cases Cited
- Mitchell v. Forsythe, 472 U.S. 511 (1985) (qualified immunity includes immunity from suit; interlocutory review may be appropriate)
- Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299 (1996) (appellate review of pure legal questions on qualified immunity)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (two-prong qualified-immunity framework; courts may address either prong first)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (objective-reasonableness standard for excessive-force claims)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (officers may briefly stop individuals based on reasonable suspicion)
- California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (1991) (no seizure without submission to show of authority)
- Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000) (presence in high-crime area plus evasive flight can contribute to reasonable suspicion)
- Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006) (warrant requirement for home entry is subject to exceptions; exigent circumstances)
- Mattos v. Agarano, 661 F.3d 433 (9th Cir. 2011) (use of Taser to gain compliance was a close question; law not clearly established at earlier dates)
- Bush v. Strain, 513 F.3d 492 (5th Cir. 2008) (force used on subdued/handcuffed detainee can be excessive)