Amanda Carter and her husband Michael attempted to pick up their minor daughter from Live Oak High School in February 2022. Prior to their arrival, a child abuse investigation by the Louisiana Department of Children and Family Services had resulted in an order preventing the school from releasing the girl to the Carters. When the Carters arrived, school officials locked the exterior doors and instructed Deputy Chad Dupuy, the school resource officer, to prevent the Carters from entering the office. Amanda Carter entered the office, became angry, used profanity, and refused to leave without her daughter. Surveillance footage showed her gesturing angrily while speaking to Dupuy. When Dupuy asked her to step outside, she refused. Dupuy then grasped her arm, pulled her toward the door, and pushed her a few inches through the doorway once she refused to move. Carter sued Dupuy and the Sheriff, alleging a Fourth Amendment violation and state law claims for negligence, assault, and battery. The district court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, leading to this appeal.
The Fifth Circuit applied the standard for excessive force claims under the Fourth Amendment, guided by Graham v. Connor, which requires evaluating the totality of the circumstances, including the severity of the situation, whether the suspect posed a threat, and whether they were actively resisting. The court emphasized that a constitutional violation does not occur every time an officer touches someone. Citing Ikerd v. Blair, the opinion noted that in just about every conceivable situation, some amount of force would be too nominal to constitute a constitutional violation. The court found that Dupuy used force for at most four seconds to remove Carter from the office for the safety of everyone involved, ceasing all force once she was outside. The court held that such de minimis force was not clearly excessive or unreasonable. Because the first prong of the qualified immunity test—whether a constitutional right was violated—was dispositive, the court did not need to address whether the right was clearly established. The court further addressed the state law claims under Louisiana law, noting that excessive force transforms protected use of force into actionable battery. However, since the force was de minimis and not clearly excessive, the state law claims also failed.
The decision reverses the lower court's denial of summary judgment, effectively dismissing the plaintiffs' federal and state law claims against Deputy Dupuy and Sheriff Ard. It reinforces the principle that nominal physical contact by law enforcement, even if seemingly unnecessary in hindsight, does not automatically constitute a Fourth Amendment violation. The ruling clarifies that officers are entitled to qualified immunity when the force used is de minimis, provided it is used to manage a situation where compliance is refused and safety is a concern. The case is remanded with instructions to dismiss the claims.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download