Witt v. West Virginia State Police, Troop 2
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 2181
| 4th Cir. | 2011Background
- Witt, after drinking at a bar, accompanied his girlfriend Gedon and her children to Gedon's home; Witt sat in the front passenger seat.
- Trooper Bowman activated emergency lights and recorded video (no microphone) as Gedon parked; Troopers Burkhart and Flanigan arrived, believing Witt was a wanted criminal.
- A scuffle ensued; Witt suffered facial injuries, scalp lacerations, and a closed head injury; portions of the incident were recorded, seven seconds were off-camera.
- Witt alleges Bowman pushed him, demanded his wallet, and forcibly pulled him from the car; Witt says he did not resist and was kicked and struck while on the ground.
- Troopers contend Witt forcefully opened the door, posed a threat, and that Burkhart did not strike Witt; they claim any head injury came from an inadvertent Maglite blow by Flanigan.
- The district court denied summary judgment to the troopers in their individual capacities on qualified immunity grounds; the troopers appealed intermediately.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the appeal proper despite disputed facts on summary judgment? | Witt argues the appeal seeks no legal question and should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. | Troopers assert a legal question on clearly established rights, not a recitation of facts, and appeal is proper. | Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; issues remain factual disputes unsuitable for interlocutory review. |
| Does the dashboard video create a clear, controlling view of the facts for summary judgment? | Witt contends video does not clearly support troopers’ version and questions material facts. | Troopers argue video supports their version and resolves disputes in their favor. | Video does not blatantly contradict Witt’s account; it is inconclusive due to sound absence and quality, not resolving material disputes. |
| Whether Scott v. Harris limits consideration of disputed facts at summary judgment in qualified immunity cases? | Witt relies on genuine disputes of material fact remaining for trial. | Scott permits evaluating if the video contradicts plaintiff’s version; here it does not clearly. | Scott does not compel accepting the defendant’s version; unresolved seven seconds keep genuine disputes for trial. |
| Should the court reweigh evidence to determine if the troopers violated clearly established rights? | Witt argues the facts viewed in his favor show a violation. | Troopers argue the facts viewed in their favor show no violation. | Court declines reweighing; adopts view favorable to Witt where disputes exist; qualified immunity not settled at this stage. |
Key Cases Cited
- Iko v. Shreve, 535 F.3d 225 (4th Cir. 2008) (qualified immunity is an immunity from suit; appealable final decision on legal questions)
- Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1996) (immunity defense; allows appeal of legal questions in qualified-immunity context)
- Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (U.S. 1995) (limits on interlocutory appeal of legal questions; need for separate legal questions)
- Winfield v. Bass, 106 F.3d 525 (4th Cir. 1997) (clarifies scope of appellate review in qualified-immunity appeals)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (U.S. 2007) (camera video can resolve or not resolve disputes; when it blatantly contradicts, may affect summary judgment)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1989) (reasonable use-of-force standard under Fourth Amendment)