In Civil Rights Suits, Exclusionary Rule Does Not Apply

Officers facing lawsuits for unlawful arrest may use evidence that was that was suppressed during the plaintiff’s criminal trial as part of their defense

Lingo v. City of Salem, 2016 BL 204750, 9th Cir., No. 14-35344, 6/27/16.

    The Ninth Circuit, following suit of nearby circuit courts, ruled that evidence suppressed during a criminal proceeding can be used by the police officer in their defense during a civil suit for unlawful arrest. The court stated that the exclusionary rule is not a personal right by noting that it does not apply in grand jury proceedings, civil tax cases, or civil deportation actions. While the officer’s evidence could not be introduced during the criminal proceeding, for the purposes of a civil trial, the officer could still use the evidence to support their probable cause arrest.

   The circuit court also noted that the exclusionary rule already gave the plaintiff a large benefit during her criminal proceedings. By extending the rule to civil cases, the practical effect would be “increase[ing] state actors’ financial exposure in tort cases that happen to involve illegally seized evidence.” 

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Lingo_v_City_of_Salem_No_1435344_2016_BL_204750_9th_Cir_June_27_2.

No Qualified Immunity For "Objectively Unreasonable" Tasing

Police officers will not be granted immunity for using a taser on a person who is unarmed and is not told he is under arrest, because that tasing was objectively unreasonable.

 

Kent v. Oakland County, 2016 BL 1955, 6th Cir., No. 14-2519, unpublished 1/6/16

    Deputies tased a man who was trying to stop the resuscitation of his naturally deceased father (who had previously expressed a desire that no such efforts be made). This tasing was "objectively unreasonable" and violated law that was clearly established in 2010. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that the deputies are, therefore, not entitled to qualified immunity and the man's civil rights claim main proceed.

    It was undisputed that the victim "was unarmed and made no evasive movements to suggest he had a weapon" before being tased. Also, he was never told that he was under arrest.

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Kent_v_Oakland_County_No_142519_2016_BL_1955_6th_Cir_Jan_06_2016_?1453485740

Pretrial Detainee Suit for Excessive Force Judged by Objective Standard

Pretrial detainees with excessive force claims in civil suits need to show only that the force was objectively unreasonable.

 

Kingsley v. Hendrickson, U.S., No. 14-6368

 

 

       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.

 

 

http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Kingsley_v_Hendrickson_No_146368_US_June_22_2015_Court_Opinion