Background
In June two thousand twenty-three, a deputy sheriff detained a seventeen-year-old motorist suspected of armed robbery. After placing the suspect in the back of a cruiser, the deputy used high-velocity pepper spray directly into the suspect’s eye from approximately three and a half feet away, causing permanent blindness. The deputy asserted qualified immunity, but the district court denied the motion to dismiss.
The court’s reasoning
The court applied the Graham factors to determine if the force was objectively reasonable. It found that while the underlying crime was severe, the suspect posed no immediate threat to safety as he was handcuffed, seat-belted, and surrounded by five officers. The court concluded that discharging the spray directly into the eye from half the safe distance was excessive. Regarding clearly established law, the court found that precedent from Ramirez versus Martinez put a reasonable officer on notice that using force against a restrained, non-threatening suspect is unlawful.
Sanchez stated a plausible claim that Nunemaker’s discharging high-velocity pepper spray directly into Sanchez’s eye from half the manufacturer-provided minimum safe distance constituted excessive force.
What it means going forward
Law enforcement officers are on notice that using high-velocity pepper spray at close range against a restrained, non-threatening suspect in a vehicle violates the Fourth Amendment and is not protected by qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss stage.