Opinion ID: 4407150
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Video Recordings

Text: The surveillance video taken at the checkout booth does not include audio. But to the extent that its limited view allows, 3 the video is, for the most part, not inconsistent with the officers’ description of what occurred during the arrest. It shows that while Hinson was at the checkout booth, Officers approached his truck with guns drawn and pointed them at Hinson in his truck. Roughly seven seconds later—enough time for officers to repeatedly instruct Hinson to put his hands up—Hinson put his left hand up and outside his truck’s window. 3 For purposes of viewing the extraction of Hinson from his truck, perhaps the most useful angle of the surveillance video captured a bird’s eye view of a portion of the driver’s side of Hinson’s truck and the edge of the checkout booth. The angle shows the officers’ drawn guns in the opening between the truck and the checkout booth, but the view inside the truck is extremely limited because the video was positioned over the top of the truck’s roof, so only a few inches of space inside the vehicle are visible. Because the surveillance system was equipped with a motion sensor that regulated when video was recorded, the surveillance video is not continuous and uninterrupted from every angle throughout the arrest. 8 Case: 16-14112 Date Filed: 06/14/2019 Page: 9 of 38 At that time, Hinson dropped out the window what later turned out to be a knife. None of the Officers reported seeing Hinson drop the knife out the window. Anderson, however, attested that he saw a knife fall from Hinson’s lap to the ground, when Hinson left the truck. Since only one knife was recovered from the ground, the knife Anderson purported to see fall from Hinson’s lap must have been the knife that Hinson actually dropped out the window. This is the one inconsistency between the video footage and the Officers’ testimony that our review of the evidence reveals. As we discuss later, though, it does not concern a matter that is material to the granting of summary judgment here. After Hinson dropped the knife out the window of his truck, he held his left hand up for about twelve seconds before reaching that hand back into the truck and out of the Officers’ views. A couple of seconds later, Hinson again put his left hand outside the driver’s window of his truck. Seven seconds after that, Hinson put both hands up and outside the driver’s window. Again, these intervals would have permitted sufficient time for the Officers to have repeatedly instructed Hinson to put his hands up. Roughly another thirty seconds passed before an officer opened the truck’s door. This period also was more than enough time for Officers to have repeatedly instructed Hinson to leave the truck. Then another eight seconds went by, and Hinson put one foot outside the truck. After seven more seconds, an officer took 9 Case: 16-14112 Date Filed: 06/14/2019 Page: 10 of 38 Hinson’s arm and pulled him from the truck. During the next several seconds, Hinson moved back in the direction of the officer who had his arm. Suddenly, another Officer moved close to Hinson and took him down to the ground.4 Once Hinson was on the ground facedown, an Officer straddled Hinson’s back and appeared to reach down by the side of Hinson’s body in a manner that would be consistent with trying to find Hinson’s arms so he could cuff Hinson. About seven seconds later, the same Officer struck Hinson on the back. Two seconds after that, the Officer again struck Hinson on the back. Another second went by, and the Officer struck Hinson on the back a third time. Then, a second later, another Officer struck Hinson in an area consistent with where Hinson’s head would have been, had the view not been obstructed. Finally, after another second, the first Officer hit Hinson on the back a fourth and fifth time. In the next second, that Officer began to sit up and to work with his hands behind Hinson’s back. For the next about twenty seconds, the Officer engaged in activity consistent with cuffing Hinson, though the video is of such poor quality that even after reviewing it frame by frame, we cannot confirm with certainty precisely 4 The camera angle designated “overall” offers the best angle of footage for the events after the Officers removed Hinson from his truck. That is wide-angle footage taken from about 47 feet away from where the incident occurred. Unfortunately, however, the events after Hinson was taken to the ground occurred in large part behind what appears to be a two-to-three-foot sign resting on the ground. In addition, because the camera filmed only when triggered by the motion sensor, the video is interrupted by periods where no filming occurred. As a result of these circumstances, it is difficult to discern much detail from the video footage. 10 Case: 16-14112 Date Filed: 06/14/2019 Page: 11 of 38 what the officer was doing. Nevertheless, the recording reflects nothing inconsistent with the Officers’ statements concerning Hinson’s takedown and cuffing, and it does not show that any Officer used a flashlight to hit Hinson. A little while after Hinson was cuffed, another Officer arrived and stood Hinson up. Hinson then fell down. While Hinson was on the ground, the Officer who had stood Hinson up used his foot to apparently tap Hinson’s back. About nine seconds after Hinson fell to the ground, two Officers stood Hinson up again and placed him in the patrol car.