Sarita Merricks v. Jeffery Adkisson
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 8038
| 11th Cir. | 2015Background
- On Aug. 11, 2008 Cpl. Jeffrey Adkisson stopped Sarita Merricks for suspected illegal window tint; he smelled burnt marijuana and sought to search her running vehicle.
- Merricks refused consent to search, kept the engine running, and physically resisted when Adkisson reached in to remove the keys; a scuffle over the keys followed.
- Adkisson twice jerked Merricks (unbuckling her seatbelt to extract her) and placed her in the back of his patrol car while another officer searched the vehicle and found nothing; she was not handcuffed and was released without citation.
- Merricks alleged excessive force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Fourth Amendment) and claimed injury (torn rotator cuff); Adkisson asserted qualified immunity and moved for summary judgment.
- The district court denied qualified immunity; the Eleventh Circuit reviewed de novo whether law was clearly established as of the incident and whether Merricks met her burden to show clearly established law.
- The Eleventh Circuit reversed, holding that no controlling precedent put Adkisson on notice that his limited force (two yanks to remove her from a running car while she resisted a lawful search) violated clearly established law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Adkisson violated clearly established Fourth Amendment law by using force to remove Merricks from her car | Merricks: the yanks were excessive force and comparable to cases where force against compliant or subdued persons was unconstitutional | Adkisson: he had probable cause, a lawful right to search, Merricks resisted and the car was running so limited force to secure scene was reasonable | Held: Not clearly established — qualified immunity granted |
| Whether precedent Merricks cites (Priester, Hadley, Reese) put officer on notice his conduct was unlawful | Merricks: those cases show harming compliant/nonresisting persons is unconstitutional | Adkisson: those cases involved subdued / nonresisting persons on foot, unlike a running vehicle and active resistance here | Held: Distinguishable; they do not clearly establish unlawfulness here |
| Whether Vinyard or the ‘‘obviousness’’ exception defeats qualified immunity | Merricks: Vinyard and the core-exception show some force was obviously unlawful | Adkisson: Vinyard condemned conduct after transport (pepper spray when restrained); its facts don’t clearly condemn a yank to remove a resisting driver | Held: Exception not met; conduct not so beyond the hazy border as to be plainly unlawful |
| Whether a reasonable officer could believe limited force was lawful under the circumstances | Merricks: injury occurred and force was unnecessary once under control | Adkisson: safety risks (running car, possible flight, high-crime area) justified split-second use of non-deadly force | Held: Reasonable officer could believe force lawful; qualified immunity applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (qualified immunity protects all but plainly incompetent or knowingly unlawful conduct)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified immunity shields officials unless they violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights)
- Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (officials are entitled to fair warning; contours of right must be sufficiently clear)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (clearly established inquiry must be made in the context of specific facts)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (objective reasonableness standard for excessive force)
- Vinyard v. Wilson, 311 F.3d 1340 (11th Cir.) (force applied to restrained, nonthreatening detainee during transport was excessive; discussed ‘‘obviousness’’ exception)
- Priester v. City of Riviera Beach, Fla., 208 F.3d 919 (11th Cir.) (use of police canine on a compliant suspect; excessive force context)
- Hadley v. Gutierrez, 526 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir.) (force applied to nonresisting suspect was unlawful)
- Reese v. Herbert, 527 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir.) (severe beating of nonresisting suspect was unconstitutional)
- Hicks v. Moore, 422 F.3d 1246 (11th Cir.) (not every touching is a Fourth Amendment violation; de minimis force analysis)