In Lombardo v. City of St. Louis, published June 28, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a split per curiam opinion, reversed and remanded a summary judgment granted in favor of police officers. The plaintiffs' decedent was arrested for trespassing and failure to appear in court for a traffic ticket. While he was in jail, the decedent put a piece of clothing around his neck and tied it to the bars of his cell. Multiple officers entered his cell. The decedent resisted. The officers handcuffed the decedent and put him in leg irons. They moved him into a prone position, and an officer placed pressure on the decedent's back and torso. After 15 minutes of struggling in this position, the decedent expired. The decedents parents sued the police officers under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. The district court granted summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity. The circuit court affirmed on the ground that the officers did not apply unconstitutionally excessive force.
The majority reversed the circuit court decision. In assessing whether officers used excessive force, a court asks whether the offices' actions are objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them. Courts cannot apply the standards mechanically. It requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case. Circumstances include the relationship between the need for the use of force and the amount of force used; the extent of the plaintiff ’s injury; any effort made by the officer to temper or to limit the amount of force; the severity of the security problem at issue; the threat reasonably perceived by the officer; and whether the plaintiff was actively resisting. The majority ruled that it was unclear whether the circuit court thought the use of a prone restraint is per se constitutional so long as an individual appears to resist officers' efforts to subdue him, no matter the kind, intensity, duration, or surrounding circumstances. Factors such as the agency instructing its officers that pressing down on the back of a prone suspect can cause suffocation, and police guidance to get a subject off his stomach as soon as handcuffed to avoid suffocation and that struggles may be due to oxygen deficiency rather than desire to disobey officer commands, may be pertinent, along with the duration of the restrain and the fact the decedent was shackled. The court expressed no view on whether the use of force was excessive or whether the officers were entitled to qualified immunity, but remanded the summary judgment to the circuit court.
Three justices dissented, opining the court should either deny review, or grant review and have the matter briefed and argued before deciding it.
Leave a Reply