Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
No. 15-1555
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. C. Weston Houck, Senior District
Judge. (2:11-cv-02289-CWH)
Argued:
Decided:
Christopher
Blair
Terry
(Terry)
appeals
the
affirm.
I.
In reviewing the district courts denial of Terrys motion
for summary judgment, we view the facts in the light most favorable
to Brian Yates (Yates), the non-moving party, as we are required
to do.
At
Yates then
When
Yates realized that Terry was behind him, Yates pulled over at a
gas station.
did not have his drivers license but that he did have military
identification.
Yates complied.
With Yates
hands on top of the car and Terry behind him, Yates turned his
head to the left and Terry deployed his taser in probe mode. 1
Yates fell to the ground.
tased Yates, and Terry responded, Back up[,] or do you want some
too[?] J.A. 23, 6869, 82, 479-80.
ground and having made no attempt to get up, Terry tased him a
second time.
told his brother to call his commanding officer and then reached
for his cell phone, which was clipped to his waist, when Terry
tased Yates a third time.
taser deployment.
multiple
Terry,
state
the
claims
City
of
and
federal
North
claims
Charleston,
against
the
North
Doe
Defendants,
and
various
federal
and
state
claims.
However, the court denied the motion with respect to the excessive
force claim against Terry in his individual capacity and various
state claims against the City of North Charleston.
Defendants
subsequently
which
filed
motion
for
reconsideration,
the
for the 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim for excessive force against Terry
in his individual capacity.
satisfy
(quoting
itself . . . of
Mitchell
v.
its
Maurer,
293
own
U.S.
jurisdiction . . . .
237,
244
(1934))).
qualified
immunity
is
immediately
appealable
under
the
See Johnson v.
Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 319-20 (1995); Winfield v. Bass, 106 F.3d
525, 529 (4th Cir. 1997).
Because in
this case the district court determined at least one of the taser
applications to which Yates was subjected required further factual
development, we must examine whether we have jurisdiction over
Yates excessive force claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983.
During the February 26, 2015 hearing on Terrys motion for
summary judgment, the district court explained that Terry was not
entitled to qualified immunity with respect to the first two taser
applications.
seems to me, are clear that qualified immunity does not apply.
think
that
they
constituted
unreasonable
force
and
Terry
is
not
constitutional claim.
entitled
Id.
to
summary
judgment
on
that
Id. at 565.
Id. at 569.
the
district
court
used
conflicting
language
in
that
they
constituted
unreasonable
force
The
court,
however,
did
conclude
that
and
Id. at 557-
further
factual
force
claim,
and
we
have
cautioned
courts
against
using
Id.
We conclude that
the
district
court
did
on
summary
judgment.
See
Danser
v.
Summary judgment
Anderson
In reviewing
To the extent that the district court has not fully set
forth the facts on which its decision is based, we assume the facts
that may reasonably be inferred from the record when viewed in the
light most favorable to the plaintiff. Id. [T]his usually means
adopting . . . the plaintiffs version of the facts.
Iko, 535
F.3d at 230 (quoting Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378 (2007)).
IV.
A.
Qualified
immunity
shields
government
officials
from
liability for civil damages, provided that their conduct does not
violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights
within the knowledge of a reasonable person.
10
Meyers v. Baltimore
Cty.,
713
F.3d
723,
731
(4th
Cir.
important
intereststhe
need
2013)
(citing
Harlow
v.
to
hold
public
officials
that
the
officer
violated
constitutional
right.
Id.
In this appeal,
(modifying the Saucier approach such that lower courts may use
their discretion to decide the sequence in which to conduct the
two steps of qualified immunity analysis).
11
B.
The
Fourth
Amendment
bars
police
officers
from
using
F.3d 520, 527 (4th Cir. 2003); see Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386,
395 (1989).
Id. at 397.
interests
interests at stake.
U.S. at 396).
against
the
countervailing
governmental
at 396.
requires
us
challenged
to
force
consider
was
the
facts
employed
at
with
the
moment
an
eye
that
toward
the
the
12
See
id.
Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Yates, we
conclude that the factors enunciated in Graham weigh heavily in
Yates favor.
alleged
infractions. 4
violations
are
nonviolent,
minor
traffic
that was the basis for Terry initially detaining Yates constitutes
only a misdemeanor under South Carolina law. 5
Bryan
v.
MacPherson,
630
F.3d
805,
828
(9th
Cir.
2010)
13
Yates, who was unarmed, complied with Terrys orders to place his
hands on the car before Terry tased him for turning his head.
After this taser application, Yates fell to the ground where he
remained when Terry tased him a second time for no apparent reason. 6
Although Yates reached for his cell phone before being tased a
third time, Yates brother testified that [t]he officer let
[Yates] slide me the phone and knew [Yates] was giving me the
phone to call [Yates] commander because he let him do it. 7
480.
J.A.
justifiable
because
the
suspect
had
weapon
or
was
acting
Yates
was
danger
to
Terry
at
any
time
during
their
encounter.
Yates
because
Yates
was
The third and final Graham factor, whether Yates was actively
resisting arrest, also favors Yates.
Nor
did Terry warn Yates that he would be tased or that he could not
move any part of his body.
gave any commands.
509 F.3d 1278, 1285 (10th Cir. 2007) (explaining that a reasonable
jury
could
find
that
the
officer
committed
constitutional
of his car and subsequently tased three times over not having his
drivers license.
810 F.3d 892, 902 (4th Cir. 2016) (quoting Orem v. Rephann, 523
F.3d 442, 448 (4th Cir. 2008)).
15
Id. at 909.
As we held in Estate
resistance-even
when
that
resistance
includes
physically
Id.
The
C.
Having
concluded
that
Yates
constitutional
rights
were
An official
is apparent.
(quoting
Anderson
v.
Creighton,
483
U.S.
635,
640
(1987)).
precedent
must
have
placed
the
statutory
or
was
not
disproportionate
entitled
force
to
by
use
unnecessary,
repeatedly
tasing
gratuitous,
a
or
nonviolent
at 532-34; Bailey v. Kennedy, 349 F.3d 731, 745 (4th Cir. 2003);
Rowland, 41 F.3d at 174; see also Parker v. Gerrish, 547 F.3d 1,
9-11 (1st Cir. 2008); Casey, 509 F.3d at 1282, 1284-86.
Although
18
suspect fell to the ground, was no longer armed, and was secured
by several officers who sat on his back.
Id.
Id.
our
holding
in
Meyers,
we
relied
Id. at 735.
primarily
on
In
our
Rowland, 41 F.3d at
19
the
facts
in
the
light
most
to
Yates,
no
See Smith,
781 F.3d at 103 (Not only did [the officers] violent response
subject [the arrestee] to an obvious risk of immediate injury, it
also created the very real possibility that . . . the attack would
continue to meet with frightened resistance, leading to an even
further
escalation
of
the
violence.);
id.
at
104
([O]ur
for
the
use
of
any
significant
force
and
yet
took
an
when
the
suspect
instinctively
himself.).
20
attempted
to
defend
V.
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that based on the
totality of the circumstances and viewing the evidence in the light
most favorable to the non-moving party, Terry is not entitled to
qualified immunity as a matter of law.
21