Opinion ID: 2811053
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Officer Vinson

Text: Appellants contend that the district court erred in dismissing their excessive force claim against Officer Vinson on the basis of qualified immunity, asserting that his decision to use the SRT to execute the warrant violated Ms. Bullock’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force and that this right was clearly established. Satisfied that resolution of this issue turns principally on whether Officer Vinson’s decision to use the SRT violated Ms. Bullock’s right to be free from excessive force, we address that factor first. 14 To maintain an excessive force claim against Officer Vinson, Appellants must adduce evidence of (1) an injury (2) which resulted from the use of force that was clearly excessive to the need, and (3) such excessive force was objectively unreasonable. 15 When deciding this question, we look to whether “the totality of the circumstances justified the particular use of force.” 16 We do so by determining whether the force used is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene at the time of the occurrence rather than with the clarity afforded by hindsight. 17 At 12 Id. at 2080 (citation omitted). 13 Id. (citing Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009)). 14 See Pearson, 555 U.S. at 242. 15 Ramirez v. Martinez, 716 F.3d 369, 377 (5th Cir. 2013) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 16 Ramirez v. Knoulton, 542 F.3d 124, 128 (5th Cir. 2008) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 17 Ramirez, 716 F.3d at 377 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 5 Case: 14-31286 Document: 00513090446 Page: 6 Date Filed: 06/23/2015 No. 14-31286 core, we ask whether the officer’s action was objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them. 18 We first assess injury. Appellants alleged that unknown officers threw Ms. Bullock to the floor, knocking out several teeth; that Officer Vinson kicked her in the stomach, the site of her recent colostomy procedure; and that the officers required her to lie face-down on the floor for more than thirty minutes during which period they ignored her requests for medical treatment. The undisputed evidence contradicts these claims of injury. 19 Putting aside Appellants’ failure to adduce evidence that Ms. Bullock suffered injury during the execution of the warrant, we turn to the next two prongs. Our inquiry is complicated by Appellants’ theory that Officer Vinson’s decision to order the use of the SRT, in and of itself, constituted excessive force. By pursuing this theory of liability, it is unclear whether Appellants maintain that Ms. Bullock suffered injuries as a result of Officer Vinson’s decision to dispatch the SRT or that the decision itself violated her right to be free from excessive force. In any event, our review of the record evidence compels the conclusion that Appellants failed to adduce evidence that Officer Vinson’s decision to order the use of the SRT was either clearly excessive to the threat posed by executing the search warrant or was objectively unreasonable. Officer Vinson testified that he decided to use the SRT to execute the warrant for Ms. Bullock’s residence based on his assessment of several factors, including (1) the criminal history of Appellant Ralph Jackson, an individual 18 Ramirez, 542 F.3d at 128-29. 19 Ms. Bullock’s medical records indicate that she reported to the West Jefferson Medical Center emergency room a few hours after the SRT executed the warrant for her residence complaining that the SRT had injured her. The records indicate that her colostomy site was clean and dry with no signs of trauma and the reported injury to her mouth consisted of a 0.5 cm laceration to her inner upper lip. Video surveillance confirms that Officer Vinson did not enter her residence. 6 Case: 14-31286 Document: 00513090446 Page: 7 Date Filed: 06/23/2015 No. 14-31286 named in the warrant; (2) the difficulty of predicting the number of individuals who would be present in Ms. Bullock’s residence; (3) discrete facts provided by a confidential informant; and, (4) the Bullock family’s prior threats against the GPD. Appellants challenge the veracity of the factors relied on by Officer Vinson in deciding to deploy the SRT. 20 First, they claim that Appellant Ralph Jackson had no criminal history of violence involving weapons – only battery and domestic violence charges. Because Appellants do not substantiate this claim with evidence, we cannot evaluate it. Second, Appellants challenge Officer Vinson’s contention that it was difficult to predict the number of persons in Ms. Bullock’s home, claiming that her residence was under video surveillance. Although Appellants are correct that the house was under video surveillance, it occurred at some distance from the house and surveilled only the front of the house. Third, Appellants urge us to discount Officer Vinson’s reliance on a confidential informant, claiming that he did so to avoid having to divulge facts that might have made his reliance on the threat assessment less reasonable. As this contention is purely speculative, we must disregard it. Finally, Appellants contend that Officer Vinson mischaracterizes the nature of the alleged “threats,” claiming that they consisted only of the Bullock family reporting to the media that they would seek legal action were the GPD and Officer Vinson to harass them further. This presents a closer question. 20 Appellants also contend that the unreasonableness of his decision can be inferred from the SRT activation policy, which indicates that Officer Vinson’s choice fell within the “selective enforcement operations” category rather than any specifically delineated situation. The SRT activation policy lists situations that are “representative of those which would require SRT activation” but notes these situations are “not inclusive of all situations where use of team is authorized.” Officer Vinson’s decision did not fall outside the parameters of the SRT activation policy, as Appellants claim, but is properly categorized under the “selective enforcement operations” category. Accordingly, the policy does not show that his decision to use the SRT was objectively unreasonable. 7 Case: 14-31286 Document: 00513090446 Page: 8 Date Filed: 06/23/2015 No. 14-31286 Officer Vinson did not provide much detail concerning the alleged “threats,” nor could he provide the names of the individuals that he claims threatened GPD officers. But, based on Appellants’ failure to adduce any other contrary evidence that would establish a dispute of material fact as to the underlying reasonableness of Officer Vinson’s decision, we conclude that this dispute is not material. Based on the totality of the circumstances, Officer Vinson’s decision to deploy the SRT to execute the search warrant for Ms. Bullock’s residence did not constitute force excessive to the need, nor was it objectively unreasonable. 21 Because Appellants failed to adduce any credible evidence that Ms. Bullock was subjected to excessive force, the district court correctly held that Officer Vinson did not violated Ms. Bullock’s constitutional right, entitling him to qualified immunity. 22