Excessive force case will proceed to trial

In this excessive force claim, the plaintiff says that Syracuse police officers subjected him to excessive force after he drove off when the police asked to see his identification. The trial court denied the officers' motion for qualified immunity, and the officers appealed. The Second Circuit (Livingston, Park and Nardini) says this case has to go to trial.

The case is Dixon v. Brown, a summary order issued on June 24. After Dixon drove off, the police pursued him, though plaintiff says he posed no threat to the police but drove away because his children were in the vehicle. One officer fired five shots at Dixon's car, but then the police lost sight of Dixon, and he was later seen driving round on his rims (the tires were shot out) toward the Onondaga Nation Reservation. While the police activated their emergency lights and siren, plaintiff did not pull over and drove onto the Reservation before pulling over into a private driveway. Plaintiff says the police punched him in the face and pulled him from the car when he was slowing to a stop. Plaintiff landed face down and an officer jumped on top of him while plaintiff's arms were underneath his body, unable to move his hands. The officers repeatedly struck plaintiff.

The district court denied the officers' qualified immunity motion, stating that, from plaintiff's version of events, he was already subdued when the officers struck him. The jury could find otherwise, but officers do not get summary judgment when the jury could also rule for the plaintiff. The same holds true on qualified immunity motions. While the officers said plaintiff reasonably appeared to be resisting arrest, thus justifying the use of force, since the jury does not have to accept that argument, qualified immunity cannot be decided until trial.

The Court of Appeals will entertain qualified immunity appeals prior to trial if the officers argue that, even from the plaintiff's vantage point, the officers acted reasonably under the circumstances. But if the trial court says that disputed facts prevent the grant of qualified immunity until after trial, then the appeal is premature and will be dismissed. This area of appellate practice is complex, as most appeals cannot be filed until the entire case is over. But since qualified immunity allows the officers to avoid suit entirely, we permit these "interlocutory appeals."

The problem for the officers is that they have not accepted plaintiff's version of events for purposes of pursuing this appeal. They maintain that plaintiff was actively resisting, even though plaintiff denies it. That is now how we take up interlocutory qualified immunity appeals. Again, the officers have to argue that they acted reasonably even upon the plaintiff's version of events. There are simply too many disputed issues for the jury for the Court of Appeals to rule on qualified immunity. The case returns to the Northern District of New York to empanel a jury to sort the whole thing out.