Suppression Ruling During Pretrial Has Preclusive Effect During Federal Civil Rights Suit

A motion to suppress ruling at pretrial precludes a later federal civil rights claim regarding a seizure because the Fourth Amendment violation was already resolved during the criminal proceeding

Nance v. Humane Soc'y of Pulaski Cty., 2016 BL 252098, 8th Cir., No. 15-3512, 8/4/16.

   The Eighth Circuit ruled that a couple cannot not sue in federal court under 43 U.S.C. § 1983 because a state’s court ruling on a pretrial motion to suppress evidence precluded their claim. During their criminal trial, the couple motioned to suppress evidence that was collected in an animal cruelty investigation. The trial court had a hearing and admitted the evidence, resolving the possibility of any Fourth Amendment claim that could be raised later. In their opinion, the circuit court rebutted any claim that the couple did not have an opportunity to fully litigate the validity of the seizure on an alternative argument. It held that any alternative argument should have been presented during the pretrial proceedings, and the failure to do so, now bars their civil rights claim on this issue.

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Nance_v_Humane_Socy_of_Pulaski_Cty_No_153512_2016_BL_252098_8th_C.

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

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