|
|
Section 1983
Case Law Updates:
|
|
|
|
|
Greetings!
Here are the latest case law updates in the field of Civil Rights Litigation as they relate to allegations of police misconduct. We try to keep you informed on new decisions reached in this area of litigation. You can now sign up for Case Law Updates on our website. You can also access prior case law updates on our site or our blog. If you have any decisions you would like to circulate on our updates, please contact me. As always, you can contact me if you have any questions or comments.
|
|
|
Seventh Circuit Holds That Officer's Use Of Force In Handcuffing Was Reasonable; Officer Cannot Be Faulted For Exacerbating Plaintiff's Pre-Existing Injury When Plaintiff Fails To Alert The Officer.
Charles Stainback v. Ryan Dixon (June 30, 2009)
According to the Seventh Circuit opinion released today:
Plaintiff alleged that he suffered shoulder injuries because the officers had used excessive force while arresting him. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Officers; it concluded that their conduct was reasonable under the circumstances. The Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Mr. Stainback was visiting his sister at the senior citizens' building in Royal Lakes, Illinois, when an intoxicated resident of that facility became angry with him and threatened to call the police. A resident at the senior citizens' building did call the police to report the disturbance, and the Officers, along with Sergeant Tom Throne, responded to the call. When the Officers arrived at the senior citizens' building, they were told that Mr. Stainback had been involved in the disturbance.
When the officer caught up with Mr. Stainback, they informed [him] that he was being placed under arrest because of an outstanding traffic warrant and asked Mr. Stainback to put his hands behind his back. Mr. Stainback did not do so. Instead, he asked the Officers not to handcuff him because he believed he would be hurt if he were handcuffed. He did not, however, inform the Officers of any preexisting injuries to his arms or shoulders. [The officers] grabbed Mr. Stainback's arms, quickly pulled his arms behind his back [and] handcuffed him.
After Mr. Stainback complained that the handcuffs were hurting his shoulders and asked the Officers to remove them, the Officers told Mr. Stainback that they would remove the handcuffs
in a few minutes. Mr. Stainback estimates that he was in handcuffs for fifteen to twenty minutes. He alleges that, as a result of the Officers' conduct, he suffered two torn rotator cuffs, which required surgery and medical treatment.
The Court rejected plaintiff's excessive force claim, explaining:
An officer who has the right to arrest an individual also has the right to use some degree of physical force or threat of force to effectuate the arrest, (citations omitted) but that right is circumscribed by the Fourth Amendment's insistence on reasonableness. In this respect, our cases indicate that an officer may not knowingly use handcuffs in a way that will inflict unnecessary pain or injury on an individual who presents little or no risk of flight or threat of injury. See Herzog v. Vill. of Winnetka, Ill., 309 F.3d 1041, 1043 (7th Cir. 2002).
The Court held "the Officers did not use handcuffs in a manner that would clearly injure or harm a typical arrestee.... [In fact] a reasonable officer cannot be expected to accommodate an injury that is not apparent or that other- wise has not been made known to him. See Tibbs v. City of Chicago, 469 F.3d 661, 666 (7th Cir. 2006) (concluding that the arresting officer did not act unreasonably when he fastened the plaintiff's handcuffs too tightly, and the plaintiff, whose injuries did not require medical care, complained only once about his handcuffs "without elaborating on any injury, numbness, or degree of pain").
The Court went on to explain:
Had the Officers known of a preexisting injury or medical condition that would have been aggravated by handcuffing Mr. Stainback, or had Mr. Stainback communicated to the Officers that he suffered from such an infirmity, the Officers certainly would have been obligated to consider that information, together with the other relevant circumstances, in determining whether it was appropriate to handcuff Mr. Stainback.
The record does not support the conclusion that the Officers knew or were informed of any such infirmities. At most, the record shows that Mr. Stainback said that he did not want to be handcuffed because he thought it would hurt and that Mr. Stainback complained generally about pain after he was handcuffed. These generalized complaints, without any elaboration regarding a preexisting injury or other infirmity, would not have placed a reasonable officer on notice that Mr. Stainback would be injured by these actions.
|
About Our Firm
Andrew M. Hale & Associates is a firm which specializes in the defense of civil rights lawsuits brought against municipalities and its police officers. The firm's principal attorneys, Andrew M. Hale and Avi T. Kamionski, have significant experience in defending cities, municipalities, police officers and other governmental employees in civil rights lawsuits. Mr. Hale and Mr. Kamionski have tried numerous civil rights cases before juries in the Northern District of Illinois and are seasoned trial attorneys. Contact Andy or Avi to discuss any of your legal needs.
|
|
|
|
The information you obtain in these case law updates is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation. We invite you to contact us and welcome your calls, letters and electronic mail. Contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not send any confidential information to us until such time as an attorney-client relationship has been established.
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
