Handcuffing here was a de mininus intrusion

Handcuffing the disorderly plaintiff was necessary and de minimus, all things considered. Secondo v. Campbell, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27593 (N.D. Fla. April 4, 2008):

Applying this standard against the facts presented by Plaintiff, this Court finds that Officer Folsom did not use excessive force. The crime of disorderly conduct is relatively minor. However, even though he was not resisting arrest, based on Plaintiff’s affidavit and depositions, Plaintiff did appear to pose a threat to the safety of the officers and the tenants. Additionally, the time that Plaintiff was subjected to the pain and discomfort was very limited. According to both Plaintiff and Defendants’ accounts, Plaintiff was handcuffed with his arms behind him for only a few minutes. Officer Folsom re-handcuffed Plaintiff after Plaintiff complained of pain. It is clear that as is often the case in arrests, Plaintiff’s handcuffing involved de minimus force. “The typical arrest involves some force and injury.” Rodriguez v. Farrell, 280 F.3d 1341, 1351 (11th Cir. 2002). Furthermore, the Eleventh Circuit has stated that “painful handcuffing, without more, is not excessive force in cases where the resulting injuries are minimal” as was the case here. Id.

Defendant’s encounter with a forest ranger at first led the officer to believe that defendant was hunting based on his orange vest, but defendant said he was just camping. A storm was approaching, and the officer asked about where his campsite was because he was concerned about defendant’s safety in the storm. The defendant produced a map, but the map was not in the area. The officer was concerned that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol or drugs or both. Then the officer walked around defendant’s truck and saw a hunting rifle leaning up against it, and then he admitted he was hunting. One thing led to another and defendant was arrested. United States v. Vance, 553 F. Supp. 2d 1308 (D. Utah 2008).*

Lack of a Miranda warning did not make defendant’s consent involuntary. United States v. Mason, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27760 (E.D. Pa. April 4, 2008).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.