New Eleventh Circuit case affirms that police officers can be liable for excessive force when making an arrest
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta recently held that a police officer is not entitled to qualified immunity for using significant force after making an arrest in which there was no danger.
In Galvez v. Bruce, the Eleventh Circuit held that a sheriff’s deputy who allegedly used excessive force after making an arrest was not entitled to qualified immunity. The decision stems from an incident that occurred at medical doctor Adolfo Galvez’s walk-in clinic in Florida. A teenage girl had pulled into Galvez’s parking lot with an overheated car and asked to use a water spigot to fill the vehicle’s radiator. In exchange, Galvez requested the girl’s driver’s license to copy in case the car was not removed. The girl gave Galvez the license, but a dispute then broke out in which Galvez refused to return the license.
Sheriff’s deputy Henry Bruce was dispatched to the scene. Bruce demanded Galvez to hand over the license, but Galvez refused. Bruce then grabbed Galvez’s right hand in an attempt to arrest him. Galvez resisted Bruce’s advancement while trying to retrieve the license from above a printer. Bruce pushed Galvez away from the printer and grabbed the license along with confidential patient information. Galvez then grabbed the license and confidential papers and placed the license in his pants pocket. At this point, Galvez was placed under arrest.
Galvez testified that after he was arrested Bruce dragged him outside. Bruce then slammed Galvez’s chest into the edge of the clinic’s car port several times. Galvez claims that his body was pinned between Bruce and the concrete wall while the slamming occurred. Finally, Bruce retrieved the license from Galvez’s pocket. Galvez was charged with petit theft and resisting arrest which were both later dropped. Galvez sustained two broken ribs and a leaking aneurysm from the incident. As a result, Galvez sued Bruce for violating his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to be free of excessive force by state police officers.
The trial court granted Bruce’s motion for summary judgment by determining that he was entitled to qualified immunity. For qualified immunity to exist, the officer must have been acting within his discretionary authority, and his actions must not have violated a statutory or constitutional right. Finally, if there was a violation of a right, qualified immunity exists if that right was not clearly established by the law. The trial court found that the law did not provide Bruce with clear notice that his conduct was unlawful, and thus, he was entitled to qualified immunity.
However, the appeals court disagreed with the trial court’s reasoning. First, the appeals court determined that that a jury could find that Galvez’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force during arrest was violated, since the use of force could be found to be disproportionate to the amount necessary for arrest. The court reasoned that the low severity of the crimes, the lack of danger to the officer, and the low risk of flight all led to this conclusion. Second, the court found that two prior cases should have put Bruce on notice that his actions were not legal. Prior cases demonstrate that qualified immunity does not exist for officers who use significant force after an arrest has taken place in which the arrestee has been secured and poses no danger to the officer. As a result, the trial court’s summary judgment was thrown out.
Our constitutional rights attorneys have assisted people in several false arrest and excessive force cases involving law enforcement officers. Although these cases can be incredibly difficult to win, we have been successful when we can show that the officer's actions violated clearly established law. This case will likely help us protect the constitutional rights of citizens when police officers get too far out of line.
