![]() Saunders was " plainly excessive, wholly unnecessary, and indeed, grossly disproportionate". In the end, the appeals court found that the force used against Mr. In all those cases, the police were not entitled to qualified immunity. The appeals court cited cases where, for example, a police dog was unleashed to attack a suspect after the suspect complied with the police, and other cases where suspects heads were slammed against pavements and car hoods and trunks. Here, the appeals court ruled that the district court should not have dismissed the claim. What amount of force then is proper? The force used must be “objectively reasonable” in light of the facts confronting the officer. The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees the right to be free from the use of excessive force in the course of an arrest. But here, the appeals court ruled that the cops went too far. The courts often side with the police against criminal suspects in these type of cases. In layman’s terms, it means the cops can use an acceptable level of force against criminal suspects. What’s that? It means that a person acting within their scope of authority or official capacity has a certain amount of discretion and authority to act a certain way. ![]() Why? Because people that are arrested make claims of injury at the hands of the police all the time and the police claim qualified immunity. The federal district court dismissed Saunders’ Fourth Amendment claim after he brought suit there. Saunders suffered lacerations, injuries to his teeth and jaw, damage to his left eardrum and emotional distress. When he was brought to his feet, blood was pouring out of his mouth and face from the impact. Then, one of the cops slammed his face onto the pavement with extreme force. He told the police he was “getting burnt” and held his face off the pavement to keep from being burned. He was held down on the pavement for a long period of time on his stomach and was not resisting, posing a threat or attempting to flee. Saunders was then jerked down to the hot pavement and handcuffed. After the sale took place, the officers drew their weapons and ordered Saunders to place his hands on the car and not move. The drug sale took place inside the undercover cop’s car. Those individuals turned out to be an undercover cop and a confidential informant. Saunders met with a couple of individuals at a gas station in Orlando, Florida to sell them oxycodone pills. The court further held that the police were not entitled to qualified immunity, which is what the police always claim after they’ve injured someone during an arrest. Saunders, who alleged that his head was slammed against the pavement with extreme force after he had been handcuffed and was lying prone on the ground, stated a valid Fourth Amendment claim for excessive force against the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and the Orlando Metropolitan Bureau of Investigation. ![]() ![]() Circuit Court of Appeals on September 8, 2014, just such an allegation was made. As a Jacksonville criminal lawyer, I represent people injured at the hands of the cops. When the police use gratuitous and excessive force against a suspect of a crime who is under control, (this usually means handcuffed) not resisting and obeying commands, it is a violation of their Fourth Amendments rights and the police are liable for the damages they cause. Can I sue the police for using excessive force when they arrested me?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |