Page 76 - TPA - A Peace Officer's Guide to Texas Law 2015

plaintiffs, are sufficient to show that Mullenix positioned atop a bridge in the dark of night, and eventually out
of contact with other officers-lacked sufficient knowledge to determine whether or not Ducheneaux was in
immediate danger from Leija, or whether Mullenixs own actions were decreasing the risk to Ducheneaux.

th
773. F.3d 712 (5 Cir. 2014).

The U.S. Supreme Court has accepted the appeal of this case which appeal is now pending. Stay
tuned

USE OF FORCE PRETRIAL DETAINEE 14TH AMENDMENT
Ed. Note: This case eases the standard which a plaintiff in a civil case must meet in order to prove an excessive
th
force case under the 14 Amendment (by a pre-trial detainee). Previously, Courts required that the officer or
jailor intend to harm the inmate before excessive force could be found. Now, after this opinion, a plaintiff
need only prove that the force was applied intentionally (as opposed to accidentally or unintentionally) and that
th
the force was objectively unreasonable an analysis similar to that involved in 4 Amendment cases. The Court
elaborates upon the factors to be considered in determining objective reasonableness of the force which provides
th
a good guide for information to be captured in reports of incidents involving use of force whether in a 4 or
th
th
th
14 Amendment context. (4 Amendment applies to seizures and 14 Amendment applies to pre-trial detainees).
While petitioner Kingsley was awaiting trial in county jail, officers forcibly removed him from his cell
when he refused to comply with their instructions. The District Court instructed the jury that Kingsley was
required to prove, inter alia, that the officers recklessly disregarded [Kingsleys] safety and acted with
reckless disregard of [his] rights. The jury found in the officers favor. On appeal, Kingsley argued that the jury
instruction did not adhere to the proper standard for judging a pretrial detainees excessive force claim, namely,
objective unreasonableness. The Seventh Circuit disagreed, holding that the law required a subjective inquiry
into the officers state of mind, i.e., whether the officers actually intended to violate, or recklessly disregarded,
Kingsleys rights.

This determination must be made from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, including
what the officer knew at the time, see Graham v. Connor, 490 U. S. 386, 396, and must account for the
legitimate interests [stemming from the governments] need to manage the facility in which the individual is
detained, appropriately deferring to policies and practices that in th[e] judgment of jail officials are needed
to preserve internal order and discipline and to maintain institutional security, Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U. S. 520,
540, 547. Pp. 57.

We now consider the question before us here, the defendants state of mind with respect to the proper
interpretation of the force (a series of events in the world) that the defendant deliberately (not accidentally or
negligently) used. In deciding whether the force deliberately used is, constitutionally speaking, excessive,
should courts use an objective standard only, or instead a subjective standard that takes into account a defendants
state of mind? It is with respect to this question that we hold that courts must use an objective standard. In short,
we agree with the dissenting appeals court judge, the Seventh Circuits jury instruction committee, and Kingsley
that a pretrial detainee must show only that the force purposely or knowingly used against him was objectively
unreasonable.

Factors to be captured in reports: A court (judge or jury) cannot apply this standard me chanically.
Rather, objective reasonableness turns on the facts and circumstances of each particular case. Graham v.
Connor, 490 U. S. 386, 396 (1989). A court must make this determination from the perspective of a reasonable
officer on the scene, including what the officer knew at the time, not with the 20/20vision of hindsight. See ibid.
A court must also account for the legitimate interests that stem from [the governments] need to manage the
facility in which the individual is detained, appropriately deferring to policies and practices that in th[e]
judgment of jail officials are needed to preserve internal order and discipline and to maintain institutional

A Peace Officer’s Guide to Texas Law 69 2015 Edition