Tracy Williams v. Brandon Brooks
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 68
7th Cir.2016Background
- At ~1:15 AM Officer Brooks observed Tracy Williams change lanes without signaling, initiated a traffic stop, and returned to issue a warning after checks showed no registration issues.
- Williams largely kept his window nearly closed, exited his vehicle against repeated commands, and ignored multiple orders to return to the car; Brooks perceived a safety threat and drew his taser and requested backup.
- A physical struggle ensued when Brooks attempted to control Williams for a pat-down; Officer Kehl arrived, turned and handcuffed Williams, who later submitted to field sobriety testing and had a 0.00 breathalyzer reading.
- Williams was charged with resisting law enforcement; he signed a diversion agreement (later revoked), then at a bench trial the state judge granted Williams’s motion to dismiss the resisting charge.
- Williams sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for unlawful stop/arrest, excessive force, and failure to protect; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of traffic stop/arrest | Williams contends no traffic infraction/probable cause; stop and arrest unlawful | Brooks observed lane change without signaling; probable cause for stop and arrest existed | Stop/arrest lawful — probable cause supported stop and arrest |
| Probable cause for resisting-law-enforcement arrest | Williams says he did not forcibly resist; dismissal at state court shows no resisting | Video and officers show active, forcible resistance that impeded pat-down and safety | Probable cause for resisting existed (and arrest valid even if for traffic offense) |
| Excessive force | Williams claims being pushed into car injured him and was excessive | Force was limited, in context of safety concerns, non-severe crime, and active resistance | Use of force reasonable under Graham factors; summary judgment for officers affirmed |
| Preclusive effect of state-court dismissal / diversion agreement | Williams argues state judge’s dismissal and diversion admission should bind or create factual dispute | Criminal acquittal/dismissal and diversion admission are not dispositive in civil § 1983 suit; district court did not rely on diversion | State-court dismissal and diversion did not preclude or alter civil § 1983 analysis; no error in not giving them controlling weight |
Key Cases Cited
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (video evidence may resolve factual disputes contrary to a plaintiff’s account)
- Jones v. City of Elkhart, 737 F.3d 1107 (7th Cir.) (probable cause exists when officer reasonably believes a traffic offense occurred)
- Jackson v. Parker, 627 F.3d 634 (7th Cir.) (arrest constitutional if probable cause for any offense, even minor traffic violations)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (objective-reasonableness standard for excessive force; factors to consider)
- Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (2001) (Fourth Amendment allows warrantless arrests for minor offenses)
- Estate of Moreland v. Dieter, 395 F.3d 747 (7th Cir.) (criminal acquittals generally not binding in related civil cases)