Opinion ID: 76910
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Mercado's Claim Against the Officers for Excessive Force 4

Text: 14 Mercado can only state a claim under Fourth Amendment against Rouse and Padilla if the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity. Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities as long as their conduct violates no clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Ferraro, 284 F.3d at 1193-94 (quoting Thomas v. Roberts, 261 F.3d 1160, 1170 (11th Cir.2001)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Qualified immunity allows government employees to carry out their discretionary duties without fear of litigation, protecting from suit all but the plainly incompetent or one who is knowingly violating the federal law. Id. at 1194 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 15 In order for the defendants to claim protection for qualified immunity, they must first demonstrate that they were engaged in a discretionary duty. Holloman v. Harland, 370 F.3d 1252, 1264 (11th Cir.2004). Because the defendants were trying to apprehend a potentially suicidal subject, they were clearly engaged in a discretionary capacity. The burden, then, shifts to Mercado to show that qualified immunity is not appropriate by satisfying a two-part inquiry. Courson v. McMillian, 939 F.2d 1479, 1487 (11th Cir. 1991). First, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to him, he must show that the officers violated a constitutional right. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 200, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001). If such violation occurred, then we must determine if that right was clearly established at the time of the incident. Id. 16
17 The Fourth Amendment's freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures includes the right to be free from excessive force during a criminal apprehension. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 394-95, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989). In determining whether the officers' force was reasonable, we must determine whether a reasonable officer would believe that this level of force is necessary in the situation at hand. Ferraro, 284 F.3d at 1197 (citation omitted). Under Graham, courts should determine the objective reasonableness of a seizure by balancing the nature and quality of the intrusion against the governmental interest at stake. 490 U.S. at 396, 109 S.Ct. 1865. In this case, the intrusion was severe. Mercado was hit in the head by a projectile fired from the Sage Launcher, causing serious brain injury. Although this weapon is classified as a less lethal munition, Orlando police regulations recognize that it can be used as a deadly weapon. 18 When determining the government's interest, we must consider factors that include the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight. Id. Furthermore, the reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. Id. 19 Because this situation does not involve a criminal arrest, our facts do not fit neatly within the Graham framework. Furthermore, because Florida does not recognize attempted suicide as a crime, Krischer v. McIver, 697 So.2d 97, 100 (Fla. 1997), it is impossible for this court to measure the severity of the crime at issue. 20 We must next consider the extent to which Mercado placed himself or others in danger. See Kesinger v. Herrington, 381 F.3d 1243, 1249-50 (11th Cir.2004) (granting qualified immunity to officer who used deadly force on a suicidal victim who posed an immediate threat of harm to himself, the officer, and others). The defendants claim that the use of force is justified because suicidal subjects sometimes make erratic moves that can jeopardize the safety of the officers on the scene. See Bell v. Irwin, 321 F.3d 637, 639 (7th Cir.2003) (noting that police were justified in using less lethal bean-bag rounds on the plaintiff who threatened to blow up his home by igniting propane and kerosene tanks outside his home). 21 However, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Mercado, we can find no indication that he made any threatening moves toward the police. See Deorle v. Rutherford, 272 F.3d 1272, 1284-85 (9th Cir.2001) (denying officers qualified immunity after deploying a projectile bean bag and taking out the eye of a subject who was relatively cooperative and not a threat to the officers or others). Even though he posed no threat to the police, he was a threat to himself, and Florida law recognizes a compelling interest in preventing suicide. Krischer, 697 So.2d at 103. 22 Furthermore, Mercado was not actively resisting arrest, and there is no evidence that he struggled with the police. See Fernandez v. Cooper City, 207 F.Supp.2d 1371, 1377 (S.D.Fla.2002) (holding that officers were afforded qualified immunity for using force to subdue an emotionally unstable person who was actively resisting arrest). Arguably, Mercado did not have time to obey Padilla's order to drop the knife because Padilla discharged the Sage Laucher within seconds of making this request. 23 All of the factors articulated in Graham weigh in favor of Mercado. Because he was not committing a crime, resisting arrest, or posing an immediate threat to the officers at the time he was shot in the head, if Padilla aimed for Mercado's head, he used excessive force when apprehending Mercado. At this point, we must assume that Padilla was aiming for Mercado's head based on the evidence that Padilla was trained to use the Sage Launcher, that the weapon accurately hit targets from distances up to five yards, and that Mercado suffered injuries to his head. Padilla was aware that the Sage Launcher was a lethal force if he shot at a subject from close range. The officers were also aware that alternative actions, such as utilizing a crisis negotiation team, were available means of resolving the situation. This is especially true in light of the fact that Mercado had not made any threatening moves toward himself or the officers. 24 Thus, in the light most favorable to Mercado, Padilla violated his Fourth Amendment rights when he intentionally aimed at and shot Mercado in the head with the Sage Launcher. See Thornton v. City of Macon, 132 F.3d 1395, 1400 (11th Cir.1998) (denying qualified immunity for police officers when the suspect did not commit a serious crime, pose a threat to the officers or others, or actively resist arrest). 25 We further conclude, however, that Officer Rouse did not violate Mercado's Fourth Amendment rights. Although Officer Rouse did not fire the Sage Launcher, Mercado contends that she should be held responsible under a theory of supervisory liability. 26 [S]upervisory liability under § 1983 occurs either when the supervisor personally participates in the alleged unconstitutional conduct or when there is a causal connection between the actions of a supervising official and the alleged constitutional deprivation. The necessary causal connection can be established when a history of widespread abuse puts the responsible supervisor on notice of the need to correct the alleged deprivation, and he fails to do so. Alternatively the causal connection may be established when a supervisor's custom or policy ... result[s] in deliberate indifference to constitutional rights or when facts support an inference that the supervisor directed the subordinates to act unlawfully or knew that the subordinates would act unlawfully and failed to stop them from doing so. The standard by which a supervisor is held liable in [his] individual capacity for the actions of a subordinate is extremely rigorous. 27 Cottone v. Jenne, 326 F.3d 1352, 1360-61 (11th Cir.2003) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). 28 Officer Rouse was in another room during the incident, and did not see Padilla aim or fire the gun. She did not tell Padilla to fire the Sage Launcher at Mercado's head. Given that Padilla was trained in the proper use of the launcher, that the Department's guidelines prohibited firing the launcher at a suspect's head or neck except in deadly force situations, and that (as explained below) there is no evidence that Padilla has used similarly excessive force in the past-all of which are undisputed facts in the record-Rouse could not reasonably have anticipated that Padilla was likely to shoot Mercado in the head either intentionally or unintentionally. Even under the failure to stop standard for supervisory liability, Rouse cannot be held liable. 29
30 Even though Padilla violated Mercado's constitutional rights, he could still be afforded qualified immunity provided that Mercado's rights were not clearly established at the time of the incident. Mercado can demonstrate that his right was clearly established in a number of ways. First, he can show that a materially similar case has already been decided, giving notice to the police. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). He could also show that a broader, clearly established principle should control the novel facts in this situation. Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 741, 122 S.Ct. 2508, 153 L.Ed.2d 666 (2002). Finally, he could show that this case fits within the exception of conduct which so obviously violates that constitution that prior case law is unnecessary. Ferraro, 284 F.3d at 1199. To make this showing, Mercado must point to law as interpreted by the Supreme Court, the Eleventh Circuit, or the Supreme Court of Florida. See Willingham v. Loughnan, 321 F.3d 1299, 1304 (11th Cir.2003). 31 Any case law that is materially similar to the facts in the case at hand must pre-date the officer's alleged improper conduct and truly compel the conclusion that the plaintiff had a right under federal law. Ensley v. Soper, 142 F.3d 1402, 1406 (11th Cir.1998) (internal quotation and citation omitted). Mercado, however, can point to no controlling case law from the Supreme Court or this Circuit dealing with the Sage Launcher. Although there are some cases dealing with less lethal weapons, such as pepper spray, none of them is materially similar to the facts in this case or truly compels the conclusion that Mercado had a right established under federal law. See, e.g., Vinyard v. Wilson, 311 F.3d 1340, 1349 (11th Cir.2002) (denying qualified immunity to an officer who sprayed pepper in the eyes of an arrestee who was already handcuffed). 5 32 If there is no case law directly on point, [g]eneral statements of the law contained within the Constitution, statute, or caselaw may sometimes provide `fair warning' of unlawful conduct. Willingham, 321 F.3d at 1301. These principles may give notice to officers, provided that the decisions clearly apply to the situation at hand. The reasoning, though not the holding of prior cases can also send the same message to reasonable officers in novel factual situations. Hope, 536 U.S. at 743, 122 S.Ct. 2508. 33 The general principle of law must be specific enough to give the officers notice of the clearly established right. Indeed, the principle that officers may not use excessive force to apprehend a suspect is too broad a concept to give officers notice of unacceptable conduct. See Jones v. City of Dothan, 121 F.3d 1456, 1460 (11th Cir.1997) (noting that although the unconstitutionality of using excessive force is an established principle, the concept is far too broad). 34 Mercado, however, relies on the principle that deadly force cannot be employed in a situation that requires less-than-lethal force. See Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. at 11-12, 105 S.Ct. 1694 (holding that a police officer cannot seize an unarmed nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead). Because the Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable seizures, the use of deadly force must be reasonable under the circumstances. Vaughan v. Cox, 343 F.3d 1323, 1329 (11th Cir.2003). Using deadly force in a situation that clearly would not justify its use is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. 35 Under Florida law, deadly force means any force that is likely to cause death or great bodily harm, but does not include the discharge of a firearm by a law enforcement officer or correctional officer during and within the scope of his or her official duties which is loaded with a `less lethal munition.' Fla. Stat. § 776.06. Less-lethal munition is, in turn, defined as a projectile that is designed to stun, temporarily incapacitate, or cause temporary discomfort to a person without penetrating the person's body. Id. According to Orlando policies, the Sage Launcher is defined as a less lethal munition; however, they also recognize that some uses of the weapon should only be employed in deadly force situations. Shooting a suspect in the head is specifically forbidden unless the situation requires deadly force. 36 As noted above, for the purposes of summary judgment, we must assume that Padilla intended to shoot Mercado in the head based on Mercado's injuries and the proven accuracy of Padilla's weapon. Because shooting a subject in the head with a Sage Launcher employs force likely to cause death or great bodily harm, this action can be considered deadly force. Both Padilla and Rouse were aware that police policy forbade them from utilizing this magnitude of force under the facts at bar. Because this situation was clearly not a deadly force situation, and because the officers utilized deadly force to subdue Mercado, they violated the clearly established principle that deadly force cannot be used in non-deadly situations. 37 Furthermore, this is one of the cases that lie so obviously at the very core of what the Fourth Amendment prohibits that the unlawfulness of the conduct was readily apparent to the official, notwithstanding the lack of case law. Ferraro, 284 F.3d at 1199 (internal quotation and citation omitted). The facts in this case are also so far beyond the hazy border between excessive and acceptable force that [the official] had to know he was violating the Constitution even without caselaw on point. Willingham, 321 F.3d at 1303. 38 We have repeatedly held that police officers cannot use force that is wholly unnecessary to any legitimate law enforcement purpose. Ferraro, 284 F.3d at 1199 (holding that slamming a handcuffed arrestee's head against a vehicle violated the Fourth Amendment); see Slicker v. Jackson, 215 F.3d 1225, 1227 (11th Cir.2002) (denying qualified immunity for an officer who kicked an arrestee already in handcuffs); Priester v. City of Riviera Beach, 208 F.3d 919, 926-27 (11th Cir.2000) (denying qualified immunity to officers who allowed a police dog to attack an arrestee who was already on the ground). 39 Officer Padilla should not have needed case law to know that by intentionally shooting Mercado in the head, he was violating Mercado's Fourth Amendment rights. When the officers entered the apartment, they found Mercado crying on the floor of his kitchen with a loose cord around his neck and a kitchen knife placed up to, but not poking into, his chest. From a distance of about six feet away, Padilla twice shouted for Mercado to drop his knife, and then discharged the Sage Launcher, hitting Mercado in the head from short range. Assuming that Padilla was aiming at Mercado's head intentionally, his use of force was clearly excessive. 40 There is sufficient evidence in the record to support a finding that Padilla intentionally aimed for Mercado's head. First Padilla had been trained in the use of the Sage Launcher. Second, the defendants' witness testified that the Sage Launcher fired accurately from a distance of up to five yards. Third, Padilla fired from a distance of six feet. Finally, the only shot that made contact with Mercado hit him in the head. Since such circumstantial evidence could lead a reasonable jury to find that Padilla intended to hit Mercado in the head, we REVERSE the district court's ruling as to Padilla and find that he should not be afforded the protection of qualified immunity. 41