Background
Dana Little sustained an injury during an arrest by an officer of the Owensboro Police Department. She brought this action under Section nineteen eighty-three of Title forty-two of the United States Code and state tort law against the arresting officer, the police chief, and the City of Owensboro, Kentucky. The district court granted the Defendants motion for summary judgment based on federal qualified immunity and immunity under Kentucky law. The incident began when a man named Justin Kyle came to Ms. Little’s home and demanded to see an individual he mistakenly believed would be present. Ms. Little and her son confronted Kyle, leading to a noisy argument where Ms. Little struck Kyle’s vehicle with a baseball bat. Kyle called the police, reporting the altercation and a threat from the son to shoot him. Officer Wesley Dunn arrived and found the situation had de-escalated. Tensions rose when Dunn spoke with Kyle first, and the Littles protested. Dunn attempted to arrest Keon for disorderly conduct, and when he tried to enter the home to follow Keon, Ms. Little blocked the door, stating he needed a warrant. Dunn then arrested Ms. Little for hindering prosecution or disorderly conduct. A struggle ensued on the porch where Dunn attempted an arm bar takedown maneuver but lost his balance and fell on Ms. Little, causing her to dislocate her elbow. Ms. Little filed suit alleging excessive force, malicious prosecution, and denial of due process.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the grant of summary judgment de novo. To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show that the officer violated a constitutional right and that the right was clearly established. The court applied the objective reasonableness standard from Graham versus Connor, considering the severity of the crime, whether the suspect posed an immediate threat, and whether the suspect actively resisted arrest. The court found that viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Ms. Little, a reasonable juror could not find that the officer’s use of force was unconstitutional or that the law was clearly established to the contrary. The officer’s actions were deemed reasonable given the context of the arrest and the struggle.
We may answer these questions in either order, and if either one is answered in the negative, then qualified immunity protects the officer from civil damages.
Goodwin v. City of Painesville, 781 F.3d 314, 321 (2015)
The dissent
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces the protection of law enforcement officers from civil liability in cases where the specific application of force is not clearly established as unconstitutional at the time of the incident.