CA9: Bruising while handcuffing qualifiedly immune based on plaintiff’s refusal to submit to handcuffing

Two 911 calls of men on a roof with a rifle and a case of beer1 justified a protective sweep. One plaintiff’s excessive force claim was a result of his refusing to submit. Vernon v. Santa Barbara, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 13689 (9th Cir. July 5, 2012).*

When evaluating the officers’ objective reasonableness in exerting force, we consider “(1) the severity of the crime at issue; (2) whether [Vernon] posed an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others; and (3) whether [Vernon] actively resisted arrest.” Gregory v. Cnty. of Maui, 523 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 2008).

The amount of force exercised by Officers Ruiz and Van Eyck to detain and handcuff Vernon was objectively reasonable. As indicated above, the officers had reason to believe that at least one occupant of the house posed an immediate threat to their safety and that a certain amount of force was necessary to confront him. In addition, Vernon’s refusal to comply with Officer Ruiz’s repeated, verbal requests and his physical resistance to handcuffing increased the perceived danger of the situation the officers confronted while in his unsecured bedroom. See id. at 1106-07. The contusions and abrasions that Vernon alleged as injuries were only occasioned by his refusal to accept reasonable directions, which were clearly intended for his safety and that of others. See Tatum v. City & Cnty. of S.F., 441 F.3d 1090, 1096-98 (9th Cir. 2006); Forrester v. City of San Diego, 25 F.3d 804, 806-07 (9th Cir. 1994).

_______

1. Cue the banjos.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.