CA9: Use of force against autistic person posing no threat was excessive

Qualified immunity was properly denied the officer on plaintiff’s claim that the officer was alleged to have used excessive force. After seeing that plaintiff was holding only a string and certainly after learning that he was autistic, no officer of reasonable caution would have had any reason to believe that plaintiff was using an illegal inhalant or otherwise engaging in criminal activity. The officer was also not entitled to qualified immunity on the excessive force claim for pinning plaintiff down until backup arrived. Plaintiff was suspected of committing a relatively minor crime, did not pose a threat to anyone’s safety, and was not actively resisting or attempting to flee from arrest. C.L. v. Grossman, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 9449 (9th Cir. Mar. 26, 2020).*

“Taking the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, Defendants violated clearly established law if they continued beating Plaintiff after it would have been clear to a reasonable officer that he had been effectively subdued.” Thus, no qualified immunity. Kalbaugh v. Jones, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 9760 (10th Cir. Mar. 30, 2020).*

This entry was posted in Excessive force, Qualified immunity. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.