01-4086 Smith v. Ball State University

Listen to this article

“Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Smith, we agree with the district court’s that no reasonable jury could conclude that the Defendants used excessive force in detaining Smith. … the officers were entitled to order Smith to exit his vehicle. See Mimms, 434 U.S. at 110-11; Class, 475 U.S. at 115-16. When Smith failed to do so, the officers were justified in using force to remove him, particularly given the potential threat to public safety of an intoxicated driver in command of a running vehicle.”

“Further, when Officer Hodson arrived at the scene, his belief that Officers Rogers and Foster were engaged in a struggle with Smith was reasonable. We must evaluate Officer Hodson’s use of force not with the benefit of hindsight, but rather as it appeared to the officer at the time of the encounter. Graham, 490 U.S. at 396. Although we accept as true the fact that Smith was not actively resisting, a reasonable officer who happened on the scene could reasonably misconstrue Smith’s unresponsiveness as resistance requiring the minimal use of force. See Edwards v. Cabrera, 58 F.3d 290, 293 (7th Cir. 1995) (focusing upon whether an officers’ mistaken belief that probable cause existed was reasonable in the qualified immunity context). Thus, Officer Hodson’s attempt to apply a knee strike-failed as it may have been-did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Finally, we do not believe the officers’ use of handcuffs was an unreasonable use of force. Rather, the Defendants attempted to detain an unresponsive individual about whom they had, at the very least, ‘a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.’ Voida, 963 F.2d at 958 (citing United States v. Taylor, 716 F.2d 701, 708-09 (9th Cir. 1983). While the officers did not remove the handcuffs after learning of Smith’s medical condition, the use of force was measured, brief and appropriate to accomplish the purposes of the investigatory stop-securing Smith and his vehicle, dispelling any notion that Smith was engaged in criminal activity and preserving the officers’, public’s and even Smith’s safety.”

Affirmed.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Barker, J., Flaum, J.