Court of Appeals sustains defense verdict in excessive force case

This case highlights the unpleasant realities when you lose your case at trial and take up an appeal. Most verdicts are affirmed. Some are reversed, that is true. But the standard of review on appeal gives the jury (or the trial judge following a bench trial) the benefit of the doubt. In this excessive force claim against the City of Mount Vernon, the plaintiff lost at trial and proceeded to the Second Circuit. The Court of Appeals affirms.

The case is Ketcham v. City of Mount Vernon, a summary order issued on May 27. This was a bench trial. Plaintiff alleged the police officers used excessive force against him. If true, that would violate the Constitution. The seminal case in this are is Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989), which requires courts and juries to consider the following in assessing these cases: the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect posed an immediate threat to anyone's safety, and whether he was actively resisting arrest. The Fourth Amendment does not cite any of these factors; the Supreme Court came up with this balancing test to facilitate application of the Fourth Amendment.

This case last reached the Court of Appeals in 2021, when the Second Circuit reinstated plaintiff's case after the trial court dismissed it on summary judgment. The Court four years ago said the evidence did permit a verdict in plaintiff's favor, necessitating a trial. But just because you survive a summary judgment motion does not mean you will win the trial. In that ruling, the Court of Appeals noted that both sides had dramatically different interpretations of the evidence. This is why we have trials.

Excessive force claims are often fact-intensive. If the officer uses force, he will claim he had no choice because the suspect was dangerous or running away or the force was needed to protect the officers. Here, plaintiff says that while "he may have actively resisted arrest in the technical sense, such conduct was justified given that the officers never identified themselves as police officer, were driving an unmarked car, and heard Ketcham screaming for someone to call the police during the ensuing altercation" Under these circumstances, plaintiff says, a reasonable officer would not have used force against him.

This argument fails. The Court of Appeals (Wesley, Sullivan and Park) notes the officers had an arrest warrant, and they found a man (Ketcham) who resembled the wanted individual. The decision is not clear about this, but the officers may have been looking for someone else. The officers saw plaintiff walking on the sidewalk, so the plainclothed officers approached him, though plaintiff saw that one of them was wearing a badge or shield around his neck. Plaintiff adopted a "defensive posture" as the officers approached and would not identify himself, instead making "challenging" responses to the officer's inquiries. Plaintiff then resisted when the officers approached, twisting his torso, moving his head, and "screaming at the top of his lungs." It took the officers several minutes to place him into handcuffs. Then plaintiff placed his leg in the doorframe as the officers tried to get him into the police car. 

On this record, viewing the evidence most favorably to the officers (the standard of review on appeal from a verdict), the trial court did not improperly find in favor of the officers. The Court of Appeals issues a similar holding in finding the trial court properly rejected Ketcham's argument that the handcuffs were too tight.