Court Opinion

ID: 9436711
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 02:59:10.482706+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:24:24.132798
License: Public Domain

RYMER, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree that the district court did not clearly err in its findings, though I am not as certain as my colleagues what the court meant in its conclusions. I think it is possible to read the first Conclusion of Law as including the officers’ lack of intent to strike Myser’s head against the floor among the totality of the circumstances that the court took into consideration. It is also unclear to me what footnote 1 is meant to cover. It parallels Finding of Fact No. 47 (“While he was down, no deputy knowingly struck his head against the floor.”) and suggests to me the possibility that the court thought that taking an action knowingly was a requirement. Given this uncertainty, and the fact that it was a bench trial, I would remand for the court to revisit its findings and conclusions in light of the unquestioned rule that the test for excessive use of force is purely objective.