Excessive force claim will proceed to trial

The plaintiff claims a police officer in Greenwich, Connecticut subjected him to excessive force after someone called the police following plaintiff's anxiety attack in his partner's residence, when he threw things around and destroyed property. The district court denied summary judgment for the officer, which would normally send this case directly to trial. But the officer appeals, claiming entitlement to qualified immunity. There can be no appeal, however, without first resolving disputed facts surrounding the use of force. There will be a trial.

The case is Moran v. Greco, a summary order issued on April 12. When Officer Greco arrived on the scene, he told plaintiff to lie on the ground outside after the officers decided to place him under arrest. But plaintiff instead stood up and began to walk way, at which time Greco and another officer brought him to the ground and turned him onto his stomach, but plaintiff resisted handcuffing. A series of officers then used force to effectuate the handcuffs. At some point, this force caused plaintiff to suffer a broken arm, causing "an audible popping sound." This happened after Greco threatened to break plaintiff's "fucking arm," to which plaintiff responded, "Why would you do that? It's already locked."

Excessive force claims are not always amenable to summary judgment, because the parties often dispute the relevant facts: the police claim they had to use force to bring the suspect under control, and the suspect claims the officer used too much force. These claims can prevail even if the plaintiff resisted to some extent. "Excessive" force is often an issue for the jury. That does not mean the plaintiffs often win at trial, but courts do not want to take that decision away from the jury. There is a fine line between excessive and reasonable.

For police officers, one way to win is to assert qualified immunity, which means the officers acted reasonably under the circumstances, even if 20/20 hindsight proves the officers went too far. If immunity is denied, the officer can take an immediate appeal. But that immediate appeal (which is otherwise disfavored in the federal system) cannot proceed unless the undisputed facts show the officer acted reasonably. In a swearing contest like this, it is difficult to agree on the facts, and since the plaintiff often argues that the force was gratuitous, the officers' motion for qualified immunity will often be denied. That is what happened here. As the Court writes:

Here, the facts viewed in the light most favorable to Moran are that Officer Greco torqued Moran’s arm forward causing it to fracture, and that, at the time Officer Greco shifted Moran’s arm, Moran was lying face down on the ground, surrounded by six officers who were either pinning Moran to the ground or, in the case of Officers Tornga and Greco, holding Moran’s wrists. On those facts, a rational jury could find that, at the time of Officer Greco’s use of force on Moran’s left arm, Moran was no longer actively resisting arrest and that the use of force on that arm— which caused it to break—was gratuitous and objectively unreasonable under the totality of the circumstances.

While the officers point to evidence suggesting they acted reasonably, the Court of Appeals (Sack, Chin and Bianco) holds it does not even have jurisdiction to resolve the appeal. Off to trial we go.