Police Use of Force to Discern Whether Car Parked Illegally Upheld

A circuit court found that aggressive tactics, such as ripping out and cuffing occupants from a car, does not violate the Fourth Amendment in minor traffic violations

 

United States v. Johnson, 2016 BL 156346, 7th Cir., No. 15-1366, 5/17/16.

    After aggressively pulling out occupants of a car and cuffing them to see whether the car was parked illegally, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals of the Seventh Circuit found the police did not act unreasonably.  In the opinion, the court said, “Officers don't need to negate every possible defense before investigating a reasonable suspicion that a traffic offense is being committed.” While the court recognized the aggressive tactics of the officers, they emphasized that excessive force by an officer or racial profiling is better corrected through a civil suit, not a Fourth Amendment claim.

               

   Notably, in the dissenting opinion, one judge criticized that extending the existing pretext for traffic stops to parking infractions should not be allowed. He further noted, that “driving while black” being used for such minor infractions will give police the go-ahead to seize minorities with the hope that it will lead to bigger and better things. 

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/United_States_v_Johnson_No_151366_2016_BL_156346_7th_Cir_May_17_2

  

Excessive Force in Pretrail Detention

KINGSLEY v. HENDRICKSON ET AL.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that in order for a claim of excessive force made by a pretrial detainee against a corrections officer to prevail under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, it needs to show only that the force used was objectively unreasonable.

The Court rejected the government’s argument that corrections officers could only be held liable if they were subjectively aware that their use of force was unreasonable. The Court ruled that the test is one of objectivity, as an objective test is consistent with precedent and more workable than the subjective test.

The Court stated that an objective test “is consistent with the pattern jury instructions used in several Circuits, and many facilities train officers to interact with detainees as if the officers' conduct is subject to objective reasonableness,” and that “the use of an objective standard adequately protects an officer who acts in good faith, e.g., by acknowledging that judging the reasonableness of the force used from the perspective and with the knowledge of the defendant officer is an appropriate part of the analysis.”

This determination will be made from the perspective of “a reasonable officer on the scene, including what the officer knew at the time.” See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 , 396. The determination must also consider the “legitimate interests [stemming from the government’s] need to manage the facility in which the individual is detained.”

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