CA11: Factual dispute as to where misd arrest occurred, in the house or out, denies QI; it appears force used was excessive

Arguable probable cause supported plaintiff’s misdemeanor arrest, but there is a factual dispute denying qualified immunity to the officers of where exactly the arrest started and how it ended up indoors. That remains for trial. The complaint also survives on the question of whether excessive force was used to arrest a non-violent suspect, as evidenced by the body cam video. The law is clearly established. Longino v. Henry County, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 32469 (11th Cir. Oct. 30, 2019)*:

Finally, the record shows that Longino was injured as a result of the arrest. He suffered from bruises, scrapes, and heart troubles during the arrest, and he experienced anxiety and panic attacks following the arrest. Hinson, 927 F.3d at 1117. In light of these facts, we hold that a jury reasonably could conclude that Officer Kinsey used excessive force in arresting Longino because he was arrested for minor, non-violent offenses, he did not pose a serious threat to anyone’s safety, he did not actively resist arrest, and he was injured as a result of the punching.

We also conclude that Officer Kinsey’s actions violated clearly established law. In Fils v. City of Aventura, we held that our binding precedent established that “unprovoked force against a non-hostile and non-violent suspect who has not disobeyed instructions violates that suspect’s rights under the Fourth Amendment.” 647 F.3d 1272, 1289, 1292 (11th Cir. 2011) (holding that officers should have known that their conduct violated the plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights when they tased him despite the fact that he committed a minor offense and did not resist arrest, threaten anyone, or disobey any instructions). …

This entry was posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Arrest or entry on arrest, Excessive force, Qualified immunity. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.