Page 10 - TPA - A Peace Officer's Guide to Texas Law 2015

state courts nationwide are sharply divided on the question whether an officer with probable cause to arrest a
suspect for a misdemeanor may enter a home without a warrant while in hot pursuit of that suspect.

(Here, the Court provides an extended discussion of the case law addressing hot pursuits of misdemeanor suspects into residences).

To summarize the law at the time Stanton made his split-second decision to enter Sims yard: Two
opinions of this Court were equivocal on the lawfulness of his entry; two opinions of the State Court of Appeal
affirmatively authorized that entry; the most relevant opinion of the Ninth Circuit was readily distinguishable;
two Federal District Courts in the Ninth Circuit had granted qualified immunity in the wake of that opinion; and
the federal and state courts of last resort around the Nation were sharply divided.

We do not express any view on whether Officer Stantons entry into Sims yard in pursuit of Patrick was
constitutional. But whether or not the constitutional rule applied by the court below was correct, it was not
beyond debate. Stanton may have been mistaken in believing his actions were justified, but he was not plainly
incompetent.

The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

th
Stanton v. Sims, No. 12-1217 (U.S. Sup. Ct., Nov. 4 , 2013).

CIVIL LIABILITY NO CLAIM FOR ALLEGED TIGHT HANDCUFFS

Gordon was arrested for DWI by Watauga officers and handcuffed behind his back without resistance. At
the jail, Gordon complained that his wrists hurt from the handcuffs. Later, Gordon filed suit against the City of
Watauga alleging the tight handcuffs caused physical injury and claiming negligence by the arresting officers.

The Texas Tort Claims Act provides a limited waiver of governmental immunity (Civil Practices &
Remedies Code, Section 101.021). At issue in this case is the waiver for claims alleging negligent use of tangible
personal property by a governmental employee. A claim that a governmental employee has caused injury by the
negligent use of tangible property is within the waiver and, therefore, not barred by immunity. In this case,
Gordon alleged he was injured by a negligent application of the handcuffs. The officers testified that they applied
the handcuffs and checked for tightness exactly as they were trained and did so intentionally. Thus, the handcuffs
were applied in the manner intended by the officers.

The Tort Claims Act further provides that a claim arising from an intentional tort (such as a battery) is not
within the waiver of immunity and is therefore barred by governmental immunity. (Civil Practices & Remedies
Code, Section 101.057). In this case, the Supreme Court held that handcuffing a person is an offensive touching
which is most akin to a battery and when done intentionally falls with the exception to the waiver and is barred
by immunity.

The case is significant due to the fact that previously the Courts of Appeals in Texas were split on whether
such a handcuffing claim is barred by immunity. Several courts permitted one to pursue such a claim and the
Supreme Court had not previously addressed the issue. This case resolved the question in favor of law
enforcement in holding that a claim for injury from handcuffing when the actions are taken intentionally by the
officers is barred by government immunity.

(Note that the holding has no effect upon a Federal civil rights claim for excessive force. However, in that
context, the Fifth Circuit has held that merely handcuffing a suspect too tightly, without more, does not constitute
th
excessive force. Glenn v. City of Tyler, 242 F.3d 307(5 Cir. 2001))
th
City of Watauga v. Gordon, No. 13-0012, Tex. Sup. Court, June 6 , 2014)

A Peace Officer’s Guide to Texas Law 3 2015 Edition