Court Opinion

ID: 9585309
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:58:53.84974+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:38:09.094840
License: Public Domain

BURNETT, Justice
(concurring in part and dissenting in part):
I concur in part and dissent in part. I agree Petitioners Quesinberry and Roth did not present any evidence suggesting the force used against them by Respondents Officers Rouppasong and Rosbrugh was objectively unreasonable under the circumstances. I also agree Petitioner Foxworth’s claim is not preserved for this Court’s review. However, I disagree with the majority’s conclusion in regard to Petitioner Lewis.
In considering an excessive force claim, the Court must judge
*599[t]he ‘reasonableness’ of a particular use of force ... from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.
‘Not every push or shove, even if it may later seem unnecessary in the peace of a judge’s chambers,’ (citation omitted) violates the Fourth Amendment. The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments — in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly' evolving — about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396-97, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 1872, 104 L.Ed.2d 443, 455-56 (1989) (citing Johnson v. Glick, 481 F.2d 1028, 1033 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1033, 94 S.Ct. 462, 38 L.Ed.2d 324 (1973)).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Lewis, I conclude the trial judge properly directed the verdict on Lewis’ excessive force claim. At the time of Lewis’ arrest, it was nighttime. The police had stopped a vehicle; the driver was standing outside the vehicle, undergoing questioning by the police when Lewis approached the officers. Lewis exchanged words with the officers. She then stood near the highway, preparing to take photographs of the vehicle and of the stop.1 As the officers walked towards Lewis, Quesinberry arrived. According to Quesinberry, the police were, struggling with Lewis. Quesinberry taunted the police and, at Lewis’ insistence, circled around the officers, snapping photographs. As a result of these events, a jury convicted Lewis of public intoxication and resisting arrest.
Lewis presented some evidence the handcuffs were applied tightly. Her own expert testified, however, carpal tunnel syndrome is not caused by a single event.
Assuming the officers used some force in effectuating Lewis’ arrest, the force was objectively reasonable in light of the circumstances surrounding the arrest. It was nighttime; Lewis was intoxicated; she was resisting arrest; her daughter was taunting the police. Lewis presented no evidence the officers used excessive force in effectuating her arrest.
*600In every arrest, some amount of force is used. However, the use of force does not automatically give rise to a jury issue as to whether the forced used was appropriate. In this instance, the trial judge properly determined the forced used was objectively reasonable. I would affirm the trial judge and the decision of the Court of Appeals.
MOORE, J., concurs.

. Lewis testified she hoped to take pictures of the driver performing sobriety tests.