Pretrial detainees with excessive force claims in civil suits need to show only that the force was objectively unreasonable.
The government had argued that corrections officers can only be found liable for violating 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if they were subjectively aware that their use of force was unreasonable. The court disagreed, stating, "a pretrial detainee must show only that the force purposely or knowingly used against him was objectively unreasonable."
The court indicated that subjectivity is more consistent with the precedent and is easier to work with than the subjective test. This aligns with Supreme Court cases such as Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979) which held that a pretrial detainee could win on a claim that their due process rights were violated by providing only objective evidence that the governmental action was not rationally related to a legitimate government interest or that it was excessive relative to that interest.
The Court gave some examples of what it considers to be objective considerations, namely: "the relationship between the need for the use of force and the amount of force used; the extent of the plaintiff's injury; and attempy made by the officer to temper or to limit the amount of force; the severity of the security problem at issue; the threat reasonably perceived by the officer; and whether the plaintiff was actively resisting." Note that this standard protects an officer acting in good faith. And due to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e, both prisoners and pretrial detainess are detered from frivolous litigation against prison officials.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.