Opinion ID: 2682680
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Fourth Amendment Excessive Force Law

Text: The Fourth Amendment guarantees “the right of the people to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S. Const. amend. IV. This provision requires, as a corollary, that officers of the state refrain from using unreasonable force to make arrests and investigatory stops. See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989). Unfortunately there is no clear signpost demarcating “the hazy border between excessive and acceptable force.” Smith v. Mattox, 127 F.3d 1416, 1419 (11th Cir. 1997). Instead, courts analyze excessive force claims in a deeply factual way, considering “the severity of the crime at 4 Defendants tasered Harper after midnight. Thus it was May 27, not May 26, when Harper fell from the tree. 9 Case: 13-13190 Date Filed: 07/11/2014 Page: 10 of 19 issue, whether the suspect pose[d] an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether [the suspect was] actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.” Graham, 490 U.S. at 396. Courts appraise these factors from the perspective of “a reasonable officer on the scene,” and not through “the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” Id. Yet even if an officer violates the Fourth Amendment as explained above, that does not mean he falls subject ineluctably to suit. The doctrine of qualified immunity shields “government officials performing discretionary functions . . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982); see also Wood v. Moss, 134 S. Ct. 2056, 2066−67 (2014); Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S. Ct. 1861, 1866 (2014); Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009); Bates v. Harvey, 518 F.3d 1233, 1242 (11th Cir. 2008). This formula metes liability to police who act irresponsibly while shielding those who make reasonable mistakes in the line of duty. See 555 U.S. at 231. To claim qualified immunity, defendants must show they were performing discretionary duties when the alleged abuse occurred. Bates, 518 F.3d at 1242. Then, if defendants carry their burden, plaintiff must prove both that the officers breached a constitutional right and that the right was clearly established when the 10 Case: 13-13190 Date Filed: 07/11/2014 Page: 11 of 19 misconduct occurred. Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232. The trial court may choose which element of plaintiff’s burden to analyze first. Id. at 236. And, should plaintiff fail to show that the law clearly proscribed defendants’ conduct, the court may dismiss the claim without deciding the constitutionality of the disputed deeds. See id. at 243−45; Reichle v. Howards, 132 S. Ct. 2088, 2093 (2012) (“[C]ourts may grant qualified immunity on the ground that a purported right was not ‘clearly established’ by prior case law, without resolving the often more difficult question whether the purported right exists at all.”); Camreta v. Greene, 131 S. Ct. 2020, 2030−31 (2011) (“If prior case law has not clearly settled the right, and so given officials fair notice of it, the court can simply dismiss the claim for money damages.”).