Sharon Ann Ransom v. Richard Sherman
697 F. App'x 638
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Sharon Ransom sued Deputy Richard Sherman under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for wrongful arrest and excessive force arising from an incident at a traffic checkpoint where officers arrested her son Justin.
- Justin fled into his parents’ front yard; officers pursued and arrested him there. Sharon and her husband came onto the porch and Sharon shouted at officers during the arrest.
- Officers instructed Sharon to go inside; when she continued to shout, Sherman arrested and handcuffed her.
- Audio and video evidence show Sharon yelling and being handcuffed with her arms held high behind her back; video also shows her partially entering a patrol car and Sherman reaching into his pocket before she fully entered.
- District court granted summary judgment to Sherman on qualified immunity grounds; Eleventh Circuit reviewed whether Sherman had arguable probable cause for resisting arrest and whether his use of handcuffing technique and pepper spray (allegedly) was excessive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful arrest: was there probable cause/arguable probable cause to arrest Ransom for resisting arrest under Alabama law? | Ransom contends she was wrongfully arrested for merely shouting and protesting, not resisting. | Sherman argues audio showed Ransom was interfering with officers and thus there was arguable probable cause under Ala. Code § 13A-10-41(a). | Court held Sherman had arguable probable cause; qualified immunity applies. |
| Excessive force—handcuffing technique: was the method used unreasonable? | Ransom asserts the way Sherman restrained her was rough and excessive. | Sherman argues the arms-behind-back technique is a common, non-excessive detention method. | Court held the handcuffing technique was not excessive. |
| Excessive force—use of pepper spray: was spraying (or reaching for spray) unreasonable once Ransom was entering the patrol car? | Ransom claims Sherman pepper-sprayed her gratuitously after she began entering the car. | Sherman contends pepper spray is reasonable where arrestee resists or refuses police requests (e.g., to enter car); video shows she had not fully entered when action occurred. | Court held use (or threatened use) of pepper spray was reasonable; no excessive force. |
| Qualified immunity overall: is Sherman entitled to qualified immunity on Ransom’s § 1983 claims? | Ransom argues constitutional rights were violated and immunity is not appropriate. | Sherman contends arguable probable cause and objectively reasonable force bar liability. | Court affirmed district court: Sherman entitled to qualified immunity on both claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Case v. Eslinger, 555 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir.) (arguable probable cause supports qualified immunity)
- Vinyard v. Wilson, 311 F.3d 1340 (11th Cir.) (reasonableness of pepper spray where arrestee resists or refuses police requests)
- Lee v. Ferraro, 284 F.3d 1188 (11th Cir.) (Fourth Amendment protection against excessive force in arrests)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (U.S.) (excessive force judged by objective reasonableness)
- Rodriguez v. Farrell, 280 F.3d 1341 (11th Cir.) (arms-behind-back handcuffing technique is commonly accepted and non-excessive)