Comprehensive Study Notes on Police Use of Force, Qualified Immunity, and Emergency Vehicle Operations

Qualified Immunity and Search Warrant Executions

• Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability only when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

• Case Law Governing Search Warrant Operations and Excessive Force:

  • McDonald v. Haskins, 966 F.2d 292 (7th Cir. 1992):
  • Facts: During the execution of a search warrant, a police officer held a gun directly to the head of a 9-year-old boy and threatened to blow his head off.
  • Defense Argument: The officer argued that pointing a firearm at a resident during a lawful search does not constitute excessive force and entitles the officer to qualified immunity.
  • Court Holding: The court denied qualified immunity, ruling that the officer's argument omitted the facts most critical to evaluating excessive force. Specifically, the 9-year-old boy was not under arrest, the officer held the gun directly to his head while actively threatening to pull the trigger, and the child posed no threat to the officer or others.
  • MacKinney v. Nielsen, 69 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 1995):
  • Facts: A police sergeant arrested a man and charged him under a statute prohibiting writing on property with "paint" or liquid, or damaging property not one's own, because the man was using sidewalk chalk to write on a public sidewalk.
  • Court Holding: Qualified immunity was denied. The federal appeals court ruled that no "reasonable officer" could have believed there was probable cause to arrest the individual under that statute for using sidewalk chalk.
  • Hartsfield v. Lemacks, 50 F.3d 950 (11th Cir. 1995):
  • Facts: A deputy sheriff obtained a search warrant for a specific residence. During daylight hours, he led law enforcement officers to a nearby residence with a completely different address. The officers used a battering ram to open the side door and pointed weapons at the resident. The warrant contained the correct address, and the deputy had personally visited the proper residence the day prior.
  • Court Holding: Qualified immunity was denied. Under the per se rule against warrantless searches and guidance from Maryland v. Garrison regarding reasonable police efforts, all reasonable officers should have known that searching the wrong house without taking basic precautions to verify the target address violated the law.

Fourth Amendment Objective Reasonableness Standard

• Recognized Legal Reasons for Officer Use of Force:

  • Effecting a lawful arrest.
  • Preventing the escape of a suspect or detainee.
  • Self-defense.
  • Protection of other officers and the general public.

• Purpose Classifications of Force:

  • Defense: Involves person versus person interactions.
  • Control: Involves State versus person interactions.

• Graham v. Connor, 488 U.S. 1001, 109 S.Ct. 778 (1989):

  • Factual Background: A passenger (Graham) suffering from a diabetic insulin reaction entered and left a convenience store rapidly to obtain orange juice. Seeing this, an officer made an investigatory vehicle stop. Although the driver explained Graham's medical condition, the officer ordered them to wait while he checked the store. Graham briefly passed out on the curb. Backup arrived, and four officers lifted Graham, carried him, and threw him head-first into a police vehicle. Officers explicitly refused to allow Graham to consume orange juice brought to the scene by a friend. After confirming no crime occurred at the store, officers drove Graham home and released him.
  • Supreme Court Standard: All claims alleging that law enforcement officers used excessive force—whether deadly or non-deadly—in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other seizure of a citizen must be evaluated exclusively under the Fourth Amendment's "objective reasonableness" standard.

• Core Evaluation Factors Under Graham v. Connor:

  • The severity of the crime committed.
  • Whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officer or others.
  • Whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.

• Judicial Evaluation Guidelines for Reasonableness:

  • Objective Perspective: The use of force must be objectively reasonable, asking whether a reasonable officer on the scene would have taken the same action when confronted with identical circumstances.
  • Standard of Information ("Standing in the Officer's Shoes"): Judges and juries must evaluate the officer's actions based solely on the information available to the officer at the moment force was used. Post-hoc discoveries or facts determined after the force was applied cannot be used to justify the force and are generally inadmissible in civil excessive force litigation.

Excited Delirium, Positional Asphyxia, and Physical Restraint

• High-Risk Restraint Concerns:

  • Positional asphyxia occurs when the position of a body interferes directly with normal respiration, resulting in asphyxiation and potential death.
  • Many law enforcement agencies strictly prohibit the practice of hogtying due to elevated asphyxiation risks.

• Excited Delirium Syndrome:

  • Definition: A medical condition defined by Dr. Wetli (Dade County, Florida, Final Report of the Custody Death Task Force).
  • Symptom Profile: Delirium or psychosis, violent behavior, superhuman strength, dilated pupils, paranoia, hallucinations, hyperthermia, undressing in public, hiding behind cars, bushes, or trees, hearing voices, elevated blood pressure and pulse rate, aggression toward objects (specifically glass), thrashing following physical restraint, jumping into water, yelling, and self-inflicted injury.
  • Risk Factor: In-custody deaths frequently occur after restraining individuals exhibiting excited delirium in a prone position, particularly when physical weight is applied to their back.

• Remedial Measures and Protocol:

  • Officers must rapidly gain control of the suspect.
  • Immediately relieve heavy body weight or pressure applied to keep the suspect controlled.
  • Remove the suspect from the prone position as quickly as possible.
  • Continuously monitor the suspect while any residual danger exists.
  • Render immediate medical attention as required.
  • Post-deployment medical care and monitoring are required following the use of Oleoresin Capsicum (OC) spray.

Deadly Force, Pursuit Operations, and Non-Combatant Risks

• The Fleeing Felon Rule (Tennessee v. Garner):

  • Standard established by the U.S. Supreme Court governing the constitutionality of deadly force to prevent the escape of an apparently unarmed suspected felon.
  • Officers must possess probable cause to believe that the fleeing suspect poses an immediate threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

• Post-Chase Excessive Force (Pastre v. Weber, 717 F.Supp. 992 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)):

  • Facts: An arresting officer engaged in a high-speed vehicle pursuit. Following the pursuit, the arrestee submitted to arrest and lay prone on the ground.
  • Conduct: Prior to applying handcuffs, the officer lost his temper and repeatedly struck and kicked the prone arrestee.
  • Holding: The arresting officer was denied qualified immunity due to the unlawful application of force on a subdued suspect.

• Assessment of Third-Party Risks:

  • Even when deadly force is authorized based on suspect actions, officers must evaluate whether discharging a firearm creates an unreasonable risk to innocent bystanders.
  • If third-party risks exist, officers must reassess the appropriateness of deadly force.
  • High-risk operational scenarios involving firearms include fleeing suspects, fleeing vehicles, dense crowds, hostage situations, warning shots, and firing directly from moving vehicles.
  • Officers are strictly required to secure all service weapons properly when off-duty and not in direct physical control of their firearms.

Canine Deployment Standards and Municipal Liability

• Mandatory Canine Recordkeeping and Field Procedures:

  • Police dogs must undergo standardized initial and continuous maintenance training.
  • All training hours, certifications, and operational deployments must be fully documented.
  • Every canine bite incident must be formally documented on a dedicated use of force report form.
  • Detailed photographic evidence of all canine bite injuries must be secured.

• Key Judicial Decisions on Canine Deployment:

  • Robinette v. Barnes, 854 F.2d 909 (6th Cir. 1988):
  • Facts: A trained police dog was sent into a dark building to locate a burglary suspect after warnings were announced ordering the suspect to surrender or face canine deployment. The dog unexpectedly bit the suspect on the neck, causing death.
  • Holding: The court ruled that the use of the dog did not constitute excessive force, and the handler was not liable under $42\text{ U.S.C. }\S 1983$. The dog was trained under standard United States Police Canine Association (USPCA) guidelines, which had maintained records for over 20 years without a prior fatality.
  • Caveat: Deployment of an improperly trained canine or an officer's intentional use of a dog to inflict deadly harm transforms canine deployment into deadly force.
  • Kopf v. Wing, 942 F.2d 265 (4th Cir. 1991):
  • Facts: During an arrest, a police canine was released and not called off for an extended duration despite the presence of multiple police officers on scene, inflicting severe injuries on the suspect (Anthony Casella). Casella was also physically beaten by officers.
  • Municipal Liability: A plaintiff can establish municipal liability under Section 1983 if agency practices foster an official impression that officer misconduct will not be documented or punished. The agency maintained an explicit policy prohibiting photographs of dog bite injuries, routinely destroyed internal use of force investigation files after 6 months, and sustained a negligible percentage of excessive force complaints compared to non-force complaints.
  • Vathekan v. Prince George's County, Maryland, 154 F.3d 173 (4th Cir. 1998):
  • Facts: A police canine was deployed into a residence and attacked a sleeping homeowner in her bed. The Fourth Circuit affirmed that releasing a police dog without issuing a verbal warning is objectively unreasonable as a matter of law.
  • Holding: Because facts were disputed regarding whether a verbal warning was actually given prior to releasing the dog, summary judgment on qualified immunity was denied.

Statutory Regulations for Authorized Emergency Vehicles

• South Carolina Code $\S 56-5-760$ (Operation of Authorized Emergency Vehicles):

  • Section (A) Authorized Conditions: The driver of an authorized emergency vehicle may exercise specific statutory driving privileges when:
  • Responding to an emergency call.
  • Pursuing an actual or suspected violator of the law.
  • Responding to (but not returning from) a fire alarm.
  • Section (B) Permissible Driving Privileges:
  • Park or stand without regard to general traffic statutory provisions.
  • Proceed past red traffic lights, stop signals, or stop signs, but only after slowing down as necessary for safe vehicle operation.
  • Exceed maximum posted speed limits, provided life or property is not endangered.
  • Disregard regulations governing mandatory directions of movement or specified turning movements.
  • Section (C) Mandatory Warning Device Requirements:
  • Statutory exemptions apply only when the vehicle simultaneously utilizes:
    1. An audible signal meeting the specifications of South Carolina Code $\S 56-5-4970$.
    2. A visual signal meeting the specifications of South Carolina Code $\S 56-5-4700$.
  • Police Vehicle Exemptions from Audible/Visual Signals: A police vehicle is exempt from displaying visual or sounding audible signals when engaged in:
    1. Obtaining evidence of a speeding violation.
    2. Responding to a suspected crime in progress where audible or visual signals would reasonably risk the destruction of evidence or the escape of a suspect.
    3. Conducting surveillance on a vehicle or its occupants suspected of involvement in a crime.
  • Section (D) Standard of Care: Statutory exemptions do not relieve the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle from the legal duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons.
  • Section (E) Regulatory Authority and Agency Policy:
  • The Criminal Justice Academy is mandated to promulgate uniform regulations pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act for emergency vehicle training and policy.
  • All law enforcement agencies operating emergency vehicles must adopt the Criminal Justice Academy regulations to formulate internal written guidelines and operational training programs.
  • Statutory History: 1962 Code $\S 46-291$; 1952 Code $\S 46-291$; 1949 (46) 466; 1977 Act No. 149 $\S 3$; 1990 Act No. 580 $\S 1$.

• Operational Pursuit and Emergency Driving Guidelines:

  • Under normal conditions, officers must refrain from driving in a negligent manner.
  • Emergency response and active pursuit driving demand strict adherence to the "due regard" standard and thorough familiarity with state law and internal department policy.
  • Sirens and emergency lights serve a formal legal purpose to clear right-of-way; however, officers must anticipate that citizens with closed windows, active air conditioning, or radios operating may not hear an approaching siren until the emergency vehicle is in immediate proximity.
  • Officers must continuously re-evaluate pursuit conditions to determine whether a pursuit remains warranted or should be terminated based on environmental hazards, traffic density, and crime severity.