CA5: Officer’s touching parent’s arm to get her through a school door for four seconds was de minimis

In a school grounds dispute, a parent’s arm was grabbed for four seconds to move her through a doorway. “Under the circumstances, we cannot say that such de minimis force was ‘clearly’ excessive and unreasonable. … Dupuy knew that the Department was investigating potential child abuse and that it had instructed the school not to release the girl to the Carters’ custody. Carter was visibly upset, demanded custody of her child, and refused to comply with Dupuy’s instructions. For the safety of everyone involved, Dupuy removed Carter from the office. Once Carter was outside, Dupuy ceased all force. We hold that the force used by Dupuy was de minimis, and that Carter suffered no violation of the Fourth Amendment. The district court thus erred in denying qualified immunity.” Carter v. Dupuy, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 11159 (5th Cir. Apr. 20, 2026).

Defense counsel in the post-conviction hearing couldn’t remember why he didn’t file a motion to suppress a car because of a single GSR particle found two months after the crime. The court implies defendant’s standing was doubtful. His allegations of what he would have proved at a suppression hearing by calling his friends to show his connection to the car was potentially self-defeating because they could be questioned about his connection to the car. Instead, defense counsel crossed on the weight to be given the single GSR particle which was reasonable. Malcolm v. State, 2026 Ga. LEXIS 108 (Apr. 21, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Excessive force, Ineffective assistance, Seizure. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.