Mlodzinski v. Lewis

United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
Nos. 10-1966
10-1967
THOMAS MLODZINSKI; TINA MLODZINSKI, individually
and as mother and next friend of J.M.,
Plaintiffs, Appellees,
v.
MICHAEL F. LEWIS, in his individual and official capacities as
Bristol Police Department Sergeant; TIMOTHY J. WOODWARD, in his
individual and official capacities as Bristol Police Department
Officer; GORDON C. RAMSAY, in his individual and official
capacities as Bristol Police Department Officer; RICHARD ARELL,
in his individual and official capacities as Northfield Police
Department Officer; CENTRAL NEW HAMPSHIRE SPECIAL OPERATIONS
UNIT, a/k/a CNHSOU; ROBERT CORMIER, in his individual and
official capacities as Plymouth Police Department Officer; CHRIS
TYLER, in his individual and official capacities as Littleton
Police Department Officer; RICK TYLER, in his individual and
official capacities as Grafton Sheriff's Department Officer,
Defendants, Appellants.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
[Hon. Joseph N. Laplante, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Lynch, Chief Judge,
Selya and Howard, Circuit Judges.
Charles P. Bauer, with whom Gallagher, Callahan & Gartrell,
P.C. was on brief, for appellants Lewis, Woodward, and Ramsay.
William G. Scott, with whom Boynton, Waldron, Doleac,
Woodman & Scott, P.A. was on brief, for appellants Central New
Hampshire Special Operations Unit, Arell, Cormier, Chris Tyler,
and Rick Tyler.
Matthew J. Lahey for appellees.
June 2, 2011
LYNCH, Chief Judge. This § 1983 action alleges that on
August 2, 2006, defendant law enforcement officers from the
Bristol, New Hampshire police force and the Central New Hampshire
Special Operations Unit (CNHSOU) used excessive force in executing
search and arrest warrants. Plaintiffs, who are family members of
the suspect arrested, allege that their Fourth Amendment rights
were violated by the officers' treatment of them while they were
detained during the execution of the warrants. Plaintiffs also
bring state law claims of assault and battery.
Seeking to avoid a trial, both sets of law enforcement
officers moved for summary judgment, arguing that they did not
violate plaintiffs' rights, and that even if they had, they were
entitled to qualified immunity on the grounds that their actions
were not clearly unlawful. Plaintiffs opposed, citing a number of
material issues of disputed fact. Indeed, on most of the key
issues, the two sides offer vastly different versions of the facts.
The district court denied the motions. Mlodzinski v. Lewis, 731 F.
Supp. 2d 157, 184 (D.N.H. 2010). Defendants have appealed from the
denial of qualified immunity. We affirm in part and reverse in
part.
I.
An interlocutory appeal from a denial of summary judgment
on qualified immunity grounds lies only if the material facts are
taken as undisputed and the issue on appeal is one of law.
-3-
Rodríguez-Rodríguez v. Ortiz-Vélez, 391 F.3d 36, 39 (1st Cir.
2004).
In 1995, the Supreme Court in Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S.
304 (1995), cut back on the broad scope of appeals from denials of
summary judgment on qualified immunity that was thought to exist
under Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985). The Court stressed
that the collateral order doctrine requires that a defendant's
claim of immunity be conceptually distinct from the merits of a
plaintiff's claim that his or her rights were violated, Johnson,
515 U.S. at 312, and it held that questions of "evidence
sufficiency" are not sufficiently distinct to warrant interlocutory
appeal, id. at 313-14. The Court explained that allowing an
interlocutory appeal on a question of evidentiary sufficiency
"makes unwise use of appellate courts' time, by forcing them to
decide in the context of a less developed record, an issue very
similar to one they may well decide anyway later, on a record that
will permit a better decision." Id. at 317. Thus, it balanced
interests in finality and avoidance of advisory opinions against
the policy reasons for permitting interlocutory appeals so that
government officials can avoid trial. Id. at 317-18.
This court has explored this aspect of Johnson on several
occasions, initially in Stella v. Kelley, 63 F.3d 71 (1st Cir.
1995). There, we held that we had interlocutory jurisdiction over
the legal question of whether a particular constitutional right
-4-
existed, but not over the fact-based question of whether the
evidence showed that a defendant's actions violated that right.1
Id. at 75. We explained that Johnson "permits immediate review of
the rejection of a qualified immunity claim when the issue appealed
concerns not what facts the litigants might (or might not) be able
to prove, but, rather, whether a given set of facts shows a
violation of a federally protected right." Id.This court has assumed interlocutory appellate
jurisdiction where defendants have accepted as true all facts and
inferences proffered by plaintiffs, and defendants argue that even
on plaintiffs' best case, they are entitled to immunity.
Rodríguez-Rodríguez, 391 F.3d at 40; see also Valdizán v. Rivera-
Hernandez, 445 F.3d 63, 65 (1st Cir. 2006) (accepting jurisdiction
over issue of whether, on a given set of facts, an employee
occupied a position for which political affiliation is an
appropriate qualification). If even on plaintiffs' best case,
there is no violation of their rights, or the law was not clearly
established, or an objectively reasonable officer could have
concluded (even mistakenly) that his or her conduct did not violate
their rights, then qualified immunity must be granted. Accepting
appellate review and granting immunity in this type of case
1
We have also held that where the immunity question turns
on disputed factual issues of motivation or animus, interlocutory
review is barred. Valdizán v. Rivera-Hernandez, 445 F.3d 63, 65
(1st Cir. 2006); Tang v. Rhode Island, 120 F.3d 325, 328 (1st Cir.
1997). No party argues this doctrine to us.
-5-
furthers public officials' strong interests in resolving immunity
issues as quickly as possible. Maldonado v. Fontanes, 568 F.3d
263, 268 (1st Cir. 2009).
Although we accept interlocutory jurisdiction in this
case, we do so against a background in which even plaintiffs' best
case against the CNHSOU officers is not entirely clear. This not
only raises some of the same concerns that led the Supreme Court in
Johnson to limit interlocutory jurisdiction, but also leads us to
question whether this use of appellate review is in the best
interests of those seeking immunity. Defendants, however, have
opted not to create a summary judgment record of greater clarity,
but rather to accept plaintiffs' version in order to test the
immunity issue, so we accept jurisdiction. See Behrens v.
Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 313 (1996).
II.
While a claim of qualified immunity requires deference to
the objectively reasonable beliefs and actions of the defendants,
even if they are mistaken, the summary judgment standard requires
that we draw all reasonable inferences in plaintiffs' favor, as
long as they are based on facts that "are put forward on personal
knowledge or otherwise documented by materials of evidentiary
quality." Morelli v. Webster, 552 F.3d 12, 18-19 (1st Cir. 2009);
see also Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007) ("When opposing
parties tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly
-6-
contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could
believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the facts for
purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment."). We
identify the "version of events that best comports with the summary
judgment standard and then ask[] whether, given that set of facts,
a reasonable officer should have known that his actions were
unlawful." Morelli, 552 F.3d at 19. Here, the facts of the events
leading up to the execution of the search and arrest warrants are
undisputed and common to all defendants. Thereafter, the parties'
versions diverge, as do the actions of the two groups of defendants
and the claims of the individual plaintiffs.
In late July 2006, Bristol Police Department Sergeant
Michael Lewis and Officer Gordon Ramsay had probable cause to
believe that seventeen-year-old Michael Rothman had severely beaten
a young male victim, Brandon Stachulski, with an expandable
nightstick. They responded to the scene of the attack and
interviewed one of Stachulski's assailants, and Stachulski
identified Rothman as the other. Stachulski, who bore several
clearly visible marks that were consistent with the use of a
nightstick, told the officers where Rothman lived and "that he is
known to carry a firearm."
On these grounds, Sergeant Lewis applied for warrants to
arrest Rothman for second-degree assault and to search his
residence for the nightstick. The Plymouth District Court issued
-7-
the warrants at around 9:30 p.m. on August 1, 2006, authorizing
execution of the warrants "at any time of day or night."
That evening, Sergeant Lewis contacted defendant Robert
Cormier, Commander of defendant CNHSOU, to request help executing
the warrants. The CNHSOU is comprised of officers from the police
departments of several towns in central New Hampshire and is
trained for high-risk warrant executions. Lewis considered the
execution high-risk due to the "viciousness of the assault and the
allegations that Rothman was armed with an expandable baton and
possibly a gun." Lewis also considered "the size of the structure
occupied by Rothman and the likelihood that there would be other
persons present." Cormier ordered fifteen members of the CNHSOU to
meet at the Bristol police station.
After discussing the situation with Lewis, Cormier
decided to use the assembled CNHSOU team to execute the warrants,
entering the apartment before sunrise in order to catch Rothman by
surprise and "thereby reduce the possibility of injury to police
officers and third parties and to limit Rothman's opportunity to
escape and dispose of the nightstick." It is standard operating
procedure for CNHSOU members to carry automatic assault rifles,
with the safety catches off, and to wear military-style camouflage
uniforms and helmets.
During the preparations for the execution of the
warrants, two surveillance teams kept the apartment, which was on
-8-
the second floor of a two-family house, under observation; they saw
nothing of note. Sergeant Lewis knew that Rothman's stepfather,
plaintiff Thomas Mlodzinski, and his mother, plaintiff Tina
Mlodzinski, lived in the apartment, potentially with other family
members, and that they would likely be home at the time of the
execution of the warrants.
Just before 4 a.m., the CNHSOU officers used a battering
ram to break down the front door of the apartment. The sound of
the door breaking woke the sleeping plaintiffs. Upon being
awakened, Michael Rothman walked out of his room into the hallway,
where he encountered the officers and lowered himself to the floor
as ordered. The officers arrested him, dressed him in shorts, and
removed him from the unit. Rothman estimates that his exchange
with the officers lasted about fifteen seconds, and defendants
concede that he was arrested "immediately." He is not a plaintiff
in this case.
After this point, the parties sharply dispute the facts,
but we recite plaintiffs' version, as defendants have conceded--in
order to obtain these interlocutory appeals--that all facts and
inferences should be taken in plaintiffs' favor. We assume in
plaintiffs' favor that Rothman was removed prior to all or most of
the following events, although the evidence is unclear.
Plaintiff Jessica Mlodzinski, who is Rothman's sister and
was fifteen years old at the time, was alone in her bedroom and
-9-
also got out of bed in response to the noise. When she opened her
bedroom door, she encountered men in camouflage with assault rifles
yelling, "Get down, palms in air!" and "search warrant!" Defendant
Richard Arell of the CNHSOU was one of these men. He entered
Jessica's room, and she got down on the floor. Jessica testified
that while she was on the floor, she thought Arell said that she
could get up and she started to do so, rising into a crouched
position, but that Arell then put his hand on her back and
forcefully pushed her toward the floor screaming "Get down."2 She
lost her balance, and her left kneecap was severely injured as it
struck the floor.3
Back on the floor, Jessica was handcuffed behind her back
with metal handcuffs, either by Arell or by defendant Rick Tyler,
another CNHSOU officer who had entered the room upon hearing
Officer Arell yelling "Get down" and hearing Jessica scream.4
Jessica testified that she was detained on the floor with a gun
2
At another point in her deposition, Jessica described the
actions as being less forcible. But Thomas Mlodzinski also said he
saw her being shoved to the floor after trying to get up, and we
take that evidence in plaintiffs' favor.
3
Since the incident, Jessica's left knee has given out,
and she has had two surgeries and been in physical therapy. She
also has nightmares and has been diagnosed with Post Traumatic
Stress Disorder.
4
Although Jessica testified in her deposition that "the
first guy" to enter her room, Officer Arell, had placed the
handcuffs on her, Arell stated that he did not recall doing so, and
Officer Tyler took credit for doing it.
-10-
pointed at her head by Arell, and that during this period, she was
"just staying still and trying not to get shot."5 She estimates
that she was detained in this manner for seven to ten minutes,
after which she was brought downstairs to the living room.
In the meantime, a CNHSOU officer wearing military
fatigues and carrying an assault rifle had also entered the bedroom
of plaintiffs Tina and Thomas Mlodzinski. This officer was
defendant Chris Tyler. He ordered Thomas, who had gotten out of
bed when he heard the door breaking, to get on the floor. Thomas
and Tina testified that another CNHSOU officer in military
fatigues, who has not been identified by plaintiffs, handcuffed
Thomas behind his back with zip ties, kneeing him in the back in
the process.6 This officer held a gun to Thomas's head for what he
described as a "short time," after which he was taken into the
living room.
Tina testified that during this period, she was still in
bed--wearing only underpants and without a sheet covering her, as
it had been very hot that night--with a gun pointed at her head by
5
The officers deny their weapons were held to the heads of
plaintiffs and say they were always kept at a forty-five degree
angle to the floor, but we must take plaintiffs' version as true.
6
Defendant Chris Tyler denies that anyone kneed Thomas in
the back, and as plaintiffs have not identified this officer, they
do not assert any claim arising out of this alleged mistreatment.
-11-
a CNHSOU officer standing two feet away.7 That officer said to
her, "Down on the ground, palms in the air." But when Tina
explained that she did not have a top on, she was allowed to stay
on the bed, covering herself with a pillow. She was also
handcuffed behind her back with zip ties. She testified that the
officer "had a gun at my head all the time." In response to a
question about how long she was detained in this manner, she stated
that "it seemed like it was forever but [was] almost half [an]
hour." Eventually, a female officer associated with CNHSOU came
into the room, wrapped a sheet around Tina, and brought her
downstairs to the living room.8
When Tina arrived downstairs, Jessica and Thomas were
already there, as was Rothman's girlfriend, Amy Furmanick, and
7
The district court read the record as showing either that
this officer was Chris Tyler or that Chris Tyler was present and
allowed another officer to point a gun at Tina's head.
8
While defendants have asked us to accept Tina's testimony
that she was held for half an hour with a gun to her head, we note
that this account is inconsistent with the time frames used by her
husband and daughter and inconsistent with the testimony of Kate
Ranson, the female officer who accompanied her downstairs. Ranson
testified that after the door of the apartment was breached, she
went inside "within a minute or two" and went up the stairs. She
immediately saw an officer standing with Tina, who had a sheet
wrapped around her, and the officer directed her to hold the sheet
and take Tina to the living room, which she did.
-12-
their baby.9 Jessica estimated that her mother arrived three to
five minutes after she, Jessica, was brought down.
In the living room, officers from both the CNHSOU and
Bristol police were involved in plaintiffs' detention. There were
at least two members of the Bristol police, Sergeant Lewis and
Officer Woodward, and one armed CNHSOU officer, whose gun was
pointing towards the floor. Jessica testified that Lewis was
"ranting and raving" about the nightstick, that he told plaintiffs
that they were "under arrest until we get the stick," that he read
them their Miranda rights, and that he said, referring to Rothman
and Furmanick's baby, "We're going to take the baby away unless we
get some answers."10
Plaintiffs testified that they remained in handcuffs for
forty-five minutes to an hour while the house was searched and they
were questioned in the living room.11 During this time, Officer
Ramsay took Jessica and Amy into the kitchen at separate points to
ask them questions. Jessica estimated that her interview occurred
9
Amy was not handcuffed and is not a plaintiff. She
states that it was five to ten minutes from the time the police
entered the room she shared with Rothman until she was taken with
their baby down to the living room.
10
Sergeant Lewis denies making this threat and states that
he only questioned plaintiffs about the location of the nightstick.
11
Sergeant Lewis says that he ordered the handcuffs removed
when plaintiffs were brought to the living room and that plaintiffs
were not cuffed when he began talking to them. Other testimony
calls into question plaintiffs' estimate that they remained in
handcuffs for forty-five minutes to an hour.
-13-
approximately ten minutes after they were all assembled in the
living room.12 Both Tina and Jessica estimated that at least some
of the CNHSOU officers left thirty-five to forty minutes after they
were all assembled in the living room.
After approximately forty-five minutes, an unidentified
Bristol police officer removed Thomas's zip-tie handcuffs with a
pair of cutters, and Tina was allowed to remove hers. Thomas then
remained in the living room watching television, and Tina returned
to her bedroom and dressed. Tina then accompanied an officer in
army fatigue pants while he searched the apartment for five minutes
and the basement for ten minutes.
In the meantime, Jessica's handcuffs were also removed,
and she and Officer Ramsay accompanied Amy in going outside for a
cigarette. During this cigarette break, Ramsay allegedly told
Jessica and Amy that if the police could not find the nightstick,
they were going to take away Amy's baby. At some point, Tina came
onto the porch as part of her walk around the house with the
officer. She spent five to ten minutes talking with Jessica, who
told her about Rothman's fight.
At around 5 a.m., Tina provided a Bristol police officer
with a "voluntary statement," stating the limited information she
12
While Jessica testified that her handcuffs were still on
during this time, Officer Ramsay testified that he is "close to one
hundred percent sure" that Jessica was not handcuffed when he
brought her into the kitchen.
-14-
knew about Rothman's fight with Stachulski. Tina testified that
after she provided the statement, all of the remaining officers
left.13 This included Lewis, Woodward, and another Bristol officer,
as well as two CNHSOU officers. Tina and Jessica testified that
the "head guy" in the CNHSOU also did not leave until this point.14
In the end, the search uncovered three baggies with small
quantities of marijuana, a glass smoking pipe, and an eight-inch
hunting knife hidden under Rothman's bed. No gun or nightstick was
ever found. Rothman later acknowledged that he had hidden the
nightstick under the stairs outside the apartment prior to the
search, and that afterwards he disposed of it by throwing it into
a river.
III.
We review a district court's denial of summary judgment
on qualified immunity grounds de novo. Guillemard-Ginorio v.
Contreras-Gómez, 490 F.3d 31, 38 (1st Cir. 2007).
Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, police officers
are protected "from liability for civil damages insofar as their
conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or
13
At another point in Tina's testimony, when asked what
time the final officers left, she estimated that it was around 6:30
a.m. This is inconsistent with her testimony that they left after
her 5 a.m. statement. In any event, there is no allegation that
anything about the search was unreasonable during this time.
14
Commander Cormier, the head of CNHSOU, testified that he
left "within a minute or two" of the main group of CNHSOU officers,
who he recalls leaving ten minutes after their initial entry.
-15-
constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have
known." Pearson v. Callahan, 129 S. Ct. 808, 815 (2009) (quoting
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)) (internal quotation
marks omitted). They receive "immunity from suit and not a mere
defense to liability." Maldonado, 568 F.3d at 268.
Following Pearson, we employ a two-prong analysis in
determining whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.
We ask "(1) whether the facts alleged or shown by the plaintiff
make out a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) if so,
whether the right was 'clearly established' at the time of the
defendant's alleged violation." Id. at 269. The second prong, in
turn, has two parts. We ask (a) whether the legal contours of the
right in question were sufficiently clear that a reasonable officer
would have understood that what he was doing violated the right,
and (b) whether in the particular factual context of the case, a
reasonable officer would have understood that his conduct violated
the right. Decotiis v. Whittemore, 635 F.3d 22, 36 (1st Cir.
2011). The salient question is whether the state of the law at the
time would have given a reasonably competent officer "clear notice
that what he was doing was unconstitutional." Id. at 37 (quoting
Costa–Urena v. Segarra, 590 F.3d 18, 29 (1st Cir. 2009)) (internal
quotation mark omitted).
Unlawfulness must be apparent at the time of the alleged
violation "in the light of pre-existing law." Anderson v.
-16-
Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987). "Immunity exists even where
the abstract 'right' invoked by the plaintiff is well-established,
so long as the official could reasonably have believed 'on the
facts' that no violation existed." Dirrane v. Brookline Police
Dep't, 315 F.3d 65, 69 (1st Cir. 2002). Although the Supreme Court
has made clear that officers can "be on notice that their conduct
violates established law even in novel factual circumstances,"
Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 741 (2002), it has also stressed that
qualified immunity "is designed to protect 'all but the plainly
incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law,'" Morse v.
Frederick, 551 U.S. 393, 429 (2007) (quoting Malley v. Briggs, 475
U.S. 335, 341 (1986)).
Immunity will not issue if "it is obvious that no
reasonably competent officer would have concluded" that an action
was lawful, but if "officers of reasonable competence could
disagree" on the lawfulness of the action, defendants are entitled
to immunity. Malley, 475 U.S. at 341. This test imposes an
objective standard of reasonableness.
IV.
We divide our analysis into two parts. We first consider
the Fourth Amendment claims brought by all three plaintiffs against
the Bristol police officers and Commander Cormier on the basis of
their prolonged detention in handcuffs after they were brought into
the living room. We then consider the Fourth Amendment and assault
-17-
and battery claims brought by Tina and Jessica against the CNHSOU
officers who detained them in their bedrooms prior to bringing them
down into the living room.
Although excessive force is by definition unreasonable
force, "reasonable people sometimes make mistaken judgments, and a
reasonable officer sometimes may use unreasonable force." Morelli,
552 F.3d at 24. When this occurs, "qualified immunity gives an
officer the benefit of a margin of error." Id.; see also Saucier
v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 205-06 (2001) ("Qualified immunity operates
. . . to protect officers from the sometimes 'hazy border between
excessive and acceptable force' . . . ." (quoting Priester v.
Riviera Beach, 208 F.3d 919, 926-27 (11th Cir. 2000))); Jennings v.
Jones, 499 F.3d 2, 18 (1st Cir. 2007) ("[O]fficers receive
protection if they acted reasonably in exercising unreasonable
force."). For plaintiffs to defeat a qualified immunity defense,
they must show "an incommensurate use of force beyond that needed
to establish a garden-variety excessive force claim and, further,
beyond the 'hazy border' noted by the Saucier Court." Morelli, 552
F.3d at 24 (quoting Saucier, 533 U.S. at 206).
Here, plaintiffs and defendants accept four basic
propositions of law as clearly established at the time of the
execution of the warrants. They agree that it was clearly
established that "officers executing a search warrant for
contraband have the authority 'to detain the occupants of the
-18-
premises while a proper search is conducted.'" Muehler v. Mena,
544 U.S. 93, 98 (2005) (quoting Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692,
705 (1981)). They acknowledge that the "authorization to detain an
occupant of the place to be searched is the authority to use
reasonable force to effectuate the detention." Id. at 98-99
(emphasis added). They accept that the use of handcuffs is
sometimes warranted to detain such occupants. Id. at 99. And they
agree that the duration of the use of handcuffs must be objectively
reasonable given the context. Id. at 100; see also Graham v.
Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 388 (1989).
A. The Bristol Police Officers and CNHSOU Commander Robert
Cormier
All three plaintiffs bring claims of unreasonable seizure
against the Bristol officers and Commander Cormier on the theory
that there was no justification for keeping them in handcuffs in
the living room for forty-five minutes to an hour while the police
searched the apartment. The qualified immunity question before us
is whether a reasonably competent officer could have thought, even
mistakenly, that in light of the clearly established law at the
time, it was reasonable to keep plaintiffs in handcuffs for this
duration while the search was executed.
Whether a seizure is reasonable depends on "the facts and
circumstances of each particular case, including the severity of
the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat
-19-
to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively
resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight." Graham,
490 U.S. at 396. "The 'reasonableness' of a particular use of
force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer
on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight." Id.Defendants argue that given the injuries inflicted by
Rothman during the beating that precipitated the execution of the
warrants and the report to Sergeant Lewis that Rothman was known to
carry a firearm, a reasonable officer could have believed that
plaintiffs' continued detention would not outweigh the officers'
safety interests. Cf. Summers, 452 U.S. at 702-03 (stating that
minimizing the risk of harm to officers is a substantial
justification for detaining an occupant during a search). But this
argument glosses over the fact that Rothman had been removed from
the scene before his family was taken to the living room. Once he
was removed, any threat from him or that the three plaintiffs would
try to assist him in avoiding arrest was eliminated. The question
then is whether there were other valid reasons to keep plaintiffs
in handcuffs after Rothman's arrest and removal.
After Rothman was removed and most of the CNHSOU officers
left, it appears that six officers remained in the house. These
officers had the combined task of searching a three bedroom
apartment, including adjoining areas and a basement, and ensuring
that the occupants did not interfere with that search. This itself
-20-
was a good reason to keep the occupants together in one room. The
reasonableness of keeping them in handcuffs, however, is a
different matter.
Defendants rely heavily on Mena, which at the time was
the most recently established Supreme Court case on detention in
handcuffs during execution of a search warrant. In Mena, a
qualified immunity case, the Supreme Court held that there was no
Fourth Amendment violation when Iris Mena was detained in handcuffs
for the two- to three-hour duration of a warrant-authorized search
of her building for deadly weapons and evidence of gang membership
following a drive-by shooting. Mena, 544 U.S. at 95-96. It was
known that the suspect in the shooting, and possibly other gang
members, rented rooms in the building. Id.The warrant in that case was executed by a SWAT team at
7 a.m. Id. at 96. Mena was found asleep in bed, and placed, at
gunpoint, in handcuffs. Id. Three other individuals living on the
premises were also put in handcuffs, and all four were moved to a
garage. Id. Although they were allowed to move about in the
garage, the four detainees remained cuffed. Id. They were guarded
by one or two officers, while the other officers performed the
search. Id.The Court concluded that the "use of force in the form of
handcuffs to effectuate Mena's detention in the garage . . . was
reasonable because the governmental interests outweigh the marginal
-21-
intrusion." Id. at 99.15 The Court reasoned that it was "no
ordinary search" because it involved "a search for weapons" and
because "a wanted gang member reside[d] on the premises," making it
an "inherently dangerous" situation. Id. at 100. Under the
circumstances, it held, the governmental interests in detaining and
using handcuffs were "at their maximum." Id.The Court recognized that handcuffing was a more
intrusive form of detention than that which it had previously
upheld and that Mena's claim was not about mere detention and
handcuffing, but rather about the two- to three-hour duration. But
it rejected her argument that this violated the Fourth Amendment.
Emphasizing that the case "involved the detention of four detainees
by two officers during a search of a gang house for dangerous
weapons," it held that the duration of the "detention in handcuffs
in this case does not outweigh the government's continuing safety
interests." Id.16
Appropriately, defendants here do not contend that Mena's
approval of the use of handcuffs for the two- to three-hour period
15
Because the Court held that there was no constitutional
violation, it did not reach the other prongs of the qualified
immunity analysis.
16
Mena also claimed that her detention continued after the
police completed the tasks incident to the search, and that this
violated the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court explained that it
would not address this contention because the court of appeals had
not done so. Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93, 102 (2005). Plaintiffs
here make no such claim.
-22-
of the search sets a per se rule that this is a permissible
duration. Rather, they argue that Mena was sufficiently like this
situation so that a reasonable officer could have thought his
actions constitutional under Mena, or at least debatably so.
Several features of the case support the objective reasonableness
of that conclusion.
Defendants could have reasonably thought that officer
safety concerns justified the use of the handcuffs to avoid any
danger, however small, that the detained occupants would use the
hidden nightstick or possibly a gun to harm them. See id. ("[T]his
safety risk inherent in executing a search warrant for weapons was
sufficient to justify the use of handcuffs . . . ."); see also
Summers, 452 U.S. at 702-03 ("The risk of harm to both the police
and the occupants is minimized if the officers routinely exercise
unquestioned command of the situation.").
Defendants also had a valid interest in conducting an
unimpeded search thoroughly and efficiently, and the use of
handcuffs assisted in this. The handcuffs prevented the occupants
of the house from interfering with the search, and from attempting
to dispose of the nightstick. See Mena, 544 U.S. at 98; see also
Summers, 452 U.S. at 702-03 (recognizing that the government's
interest in "the orderly completion of the search" and preventing
"frantic efforts to conceal or destroy evidence" may justify
-23-
detention). There is no allegation that plaintiffs were handcuffed
longer than it took to search the house.
A reasonable officer could have also taken into account
the fact that the plaintiffs did not--on this record--complain that
the handcuffs were painful. As Justice Kennedy explained in his
Mena concurrence, which he wrote to provide more guidance to police
and "help ensure that police handcuffing during searches becomes
neither routine nor unduly prolonged," Mena, 544 U.S. at 102(Kennedy, J., concurring), there are special concerns raised when
handcuffs hurt the person cuffed:
If the search extends to the point when the
handcuffs can cause real pain or serious
discomfort, provision must be made to alter
the conditions of detention at least long
enough to attend to the needs of the detainee.
. . . The restraint should also be removed if,
at any point during the search, it would be
readily apparent to any objectively reasonable
officer that removing the handcuffs would not
compromise the officers' safety or risk
interference or substantial delay in the
execution of the search.
Id. at 103. Here, there is no evidence that any of the plaintiffs
made any complaints about the handcuffs. Indeed, the cuffs on Tina
apparently loosened so much that when the police said they would
cut them off, she said they did not need to. She apparently
slipped them off. The absence of complaints was a factor a
reasonable officer could have taken into consideration.
In light of Mena, we conclude that the question of
qualified immunity must be decided in favor of these officers.
-24-
They are entitled to immunity because it would have been fairly
debatable among reasonable officers whether detaining plaintiffs in
handcuffs for forty-five minutes to an hour during the search was
reasonable under the facts.
We say the question was fairly debatable because, as the
district court carefully noted, there are some obvious differences
from Mena which we believe reasonable officers should have
considered. First, the number of detainees did not, as in Mena,
outnumber the number of officers throughout the period of their
detention. Cf. id. (noting that the detainees outnumbered those
supervising them, "and this situation could not be remedied without
diverting officers" from the search). Second, plaintiffs' home was
not a gang house known to have firearms in it, but rather an
apartment known to house a family that included a fifteen-year-old
girl; other than Rothman, the remaining members of the family were
not known or even suspected to be violent. Cf. id. at 100(majority opinion). Third, the object of the search was a
nightstick used when two teenagers attacked another one over a
girl, rather than a gun possessed by a gang member who had recently
been involved in a drive-by shooting; although the officers had a
fear that there was a firearm on the premises that could be used
against them, that fear did not have the same foundation as in
Mena. Cf. id. at 95-96. Based on these differences, a reasonable
-25-
officer might well have reached a different conclusion than
defendants did here.
However, these factors are not so substantial that no
competent officer could have thought that the use of handcuffs
during the search was permissible. "Even if this reasoning were
mistaken, it would not have been egregiously so and, accordingly,
qualified immunity is available." Wagner v. City of Holyoke, 404
F.3d 504, 509 (1st Cir. 2005); see also Malley, 475 U.S. at 341(stating that qualified immunity is available when "officers of
reasonable competence could disagree").
We reverse the denial of immunity on all claims arising
out of this handcuffing and order entry of judgment granting
qualified immunity. To be clear, we are not holding that on
plaintiffs' version of the facts there was no constitutional
violation, but rather that if there was a violation, it was not so
clear as to give the officers fair warning.
B. CNHSOU Officers Richard Arell, Robert Cormier, Chris
Tyler, and Rick Tyler
Plaintiffs Jessica and Tina claim that they were
subjected to excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment,
as well as assault and battery, by the CNHSOU officers who detained
them in their bedrooms before bringing them down to the living
room. The question here is whether the force used in detaining
Jessica and Tina is consistent with the kind of judgment that a
-26-
reasonable police officer under the same or similar circumstances
might have made.
For Jessica, the claim of excessive force is based on the
fact that she was shoved to the floor by Officer Arell, severely
damaging her kneecap, and that she was then handcuffed behind her
back with metal handcuffs and detained with an assault rifle held
to her head for seven to ten minutes, far beyond the time it took
to locate, arrest, and remove Rothman. We do not separate these
facts out but rather take them as a whole.17 On plaintiffs' version
of events, Jessica, a fifteen-year-old girl, was in no way a threat
to the officers. She was not a suspect and made no efforts to
resist, but rather complied with all commands. And the officers'
actions are alleged to have caused her serious physical injury,
which required two surgeries and extensive treatment, as well as
psychological injury, including Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
First, the facts are sufficient to support a finding that
a Fourth Amendment violation occurred. Second, taking all facts
and inferences in Jessica's favor, we conclude, as did the district
court, that the CNHSOU officers involved are not on this state of
17
Defendants attempt to carve out the portion of these
events pertaining to Jessica being "forced" back down to the floor
based on her testimony, at deposition, that the hand placed on her
back did not "shove me to the floor." But she repeatedly said that
the officer put his hand on her back and "pushed" or "shoved" her
forward, causing her to hit the floor, and that he "should have
never laid a hand on" her. Defendants cannot have it both ways; in
order to have interlocutory appellate review, they have accepted
all facts in plaintiffs' favor.
-27-
the record entitled to immunity. The law was sufficiently well
established to provide the officers with fair warning that the
force they are alleged to have used on Jessica was excessive given
the circumstances. While the "calculus of reasonableness must
embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced
to make split-second judgments . . . in circumstances that are
tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving," Graham, 490 U.S. at
396-97, the need to subdue Jessica and to keep a weapon trained at
her head while she was in metal handcuffs was minimal at best, and
certainly did not last for seven to ten minutes.
Although not "every push or shove" will reach the level
required for an actionable excessive force claim, Alexis v.
McDonald's Rests. of Mass., Inc., 67 F.3d 341, 352 (1st Cir. 1995),
no reasonably competent officer would have thought the totality of
force used against Jessica was permissible given the facts of her
situation, taking all inferences in plaintiffs' favor. Cf.
Morelli, 552 F.3d at 24 (finding that no reasonable officer could
have thought it reasonable to yank the arm of an unarmed and
non-violent person, suspected only of the theft of $20, and pin her
against a wall for three to four minutes with sufficient force to
tear her rotator cuff).
A reasonably competent officer also would not have
thought that it was permissible to point an assault rifle at the
head of an innocent, non-threatening, and handcuffed fifteen-year-
-28-
old girl for seven to ten minutes, far beyond the time it took to
secure the premises and arrest and remove the only suspect. See,
e.g., Holland ex rel. Overdoff v. Harrington, 268 F.3d 1179,
1192-93 (10th Cir. 2001) (denying qualified immunity to officers
who detained children, including teenagers, at gunpoint after
gaining complete control of the situation); McDonald ex rel.
McDonald v. Haskins, 966 F.2d 292, 295 (7th Cir. 1992) (denying
qualified immunity to officer who during search of residence held
gun to head of nine-year-old and threatened to pull trigger); see
also Baker v. Monroe Twp., 50 F.3d 1186, 1192-94 (3rd Cir. 1995)
(reversing summary judgment on grounds that constitutional
violation could be found if officers had, as alleged, pointed guns
at fifteen- and seventeen-year-olds and handcuffed some of them for
up to twenty-five minutes when they were merely visiting house that
was being searched). Even without a First Circuit case presenting
the same set of facts, defendants would have had fair warning that
given the circumstances, the force they are alleged to have used
was constitutionally excessive. Cf. Tekle v. United States, 511
F.3d 839, 848 (9th Cir. 2007) ("Although there may not be a prior
case specifically prohibiting the use of handcuffs and weapons by
more than twenty officers to subdue an unarmed eleven-year-old boy
who is not suspected of any wrongdoing and is cooperating with the
officers, '[a]ny reasonable officer should have known that such
conduct constituted the use of excessive force.'" (alteration in
-29-
original) (quoting Drummond ex rel. Drummond v. City of Anaheim,
343 F.3d 1052, 1061 (9th Cir. 2003))).
Defendants have not even come forward with a
justification for pointing a gun at Jessica's head.18 Their defense
is that they did not use the force they are alleged to have used.
Assuming Jessica's version of the relevant facts to be true, we
cannot say that a reasonable officer would have used such force.
On Jessica's account, defendants' actions are "outside the universe
of protected mistakes." Morelli, 552 F.3d at 24.
As for Tina, her case turns on her claim that an assault
rifle was pointed to her head for up to half an hour. In that
period of time, her son was removed from the house, her husband was
taken downstairs, and she was handcuffed and lying partially nude
in bed. While the CNHSOU officers did initially have to make split
second decisions to assess Tina's threat level and the possible
need for restraint, that does not characterize the entire period in
the bedroom, which she says was half an hour. Rather, it quickly
became clear, on plaintiffs' version of the facts, that Tina was
not the suspect, that she was not trying to resist arrest or flee,
that she was not dangerous, and that she was not trying to dispose
18
Further, as to the handcuffing, one of the CNHSOU
officers who participated in executing the warrants and is now an
assistant commander testified that in executing a warrant, there
would be no need--and it would be against his training--to handcuff
either a fifteen-year-old girl or an adult woman with a sheet
wrapped around her, unless she was a suspect or posed a threat.
-30-
of contraband or weapons. Further, she was completely compliant
with all orders. These are all relevant factors under Graham that
undercut any claim that defendants acted reasonably.
The circumstances of Tina's detention in bed are unlike
those in which a reasonable officer could have thought that keeping
a gun pointed at her head was lawful. Cf. Los Angeles Cnty. v.
Rettele, 550 U.S. 609, 610 (2007) (finding qualified immunity on
the grounds that there was no constitutional violation when police
entered bedroom with guns drawn, ordered plaintiffs out of bed,
forced them to stand naked at gunpoint for one to two minutes, and
detained them for a few more minutes, before realizing that they
had made a mistake and leaving the house). There was no reasonable
danger that Tina, who was not a suspect and was nearly naked in bed
and without a sheet, was concealing a weapon. Cf. id. at 614. The
officers were not carrying out a warrant for a group of individuals
who might have been engaged in joint criminal activity with
Rothman. Cf. id. at 610. And the gun pointed at Tina was not, on
her version, lowered as soon as it was clearly safe to do so. Cf.
id. at 615.
Defendants had fair notice that under the circumstances
alleged, the detention of Tina with an assault rifle at her head
was objectively unreasonable. See, e.g., Baird v. Renbarger, 576
F.3d 340, 347 (7th Cir. 2009) (denying qualified immunity to
officer who pointed gun at plaintiff when "there was no hint of
-31-
danger"); Jacobs v. City of Chicago, 215 F.3d 758, 773-74 (7th Cir.
2000) (denying qualified immunity to officer who pointed a gun at
an elderly man's head for ten minutes after realizing that he was
not the desired suspect and presented no resistance or threat); see
also Harrington, 268 F.3d at 1193 ("Where a person has submitted to
the officers' show of force without resistance, and where an
officer has no reasonable cause to believe that person poses a
danger to the officer or to others, it may be excessive and
unreasonable to continue to aim a loaded firearm directly at that
person, in contrast to simply holding the weapon in a fashion ready
for immediate use."). As with Jessica, defendants offer no
justification for holding an assault rifle to Tina's head.
The CNHSOU officers also argue that the doctrine of
official immunity protects them from Jessica's and Tina's related
state law assault and battery claims. We reject this argument for
the same reasons identified by the district court. See Mlodzinski,
731 F. Supp. 2d at 183. Under the doctrine of official immunity,
"municipal police officers are immune from personal liability for
decisions, acts or omissions that are: (1) made within the scope of
their official duties while in the course of their employment; (2)
discretionary, rather than ministerial; and (3) not made in a
wanton or reckless manner." Everitt v. Gen. Elec. Co., 932 A.2d
831, 845 (N.H. 2007). Given defendants' failure to establish that
a reasonable officer in their position would have believed his
-32-
conduct was consistent with Jessica's and Tina's Fourth Amendment
rights, they have also failed to establish that they did not act in
a wanton or reckless manner. Cf. Binay v. Bettendorf, 601 F.3d
640, 652-54 (6th Cir. 2010) (denying official immunity from assault
and battery claim arising out of excessive force during arrests for
essentially the same reasons that it denied qualified immunity from
overlapping Fourth Amendment claim).
A more fleshed-out record on summary judgment than the
bare-bones details with which we have been presented could well
have affected the outcome of each of the immunity issues. For
example, the situation would be very different if, given the
execution of these warrants, Tina had been detained with a weapon
pointed at her for only a very short period needed while she was
being cuffed, her husband was being escorted out of the room, and
her son was being apprehended. Our denial of immunity on
plaintiffs' version of the events leaves these claims for trial,
where defendants may try to persuade the jury that they did not do
what they are accused of doing.
V.
We affirm in part and reverse in part and remand for
further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
One-half of the costs are awarded to the plaintiffs, to
be taxed against the CNHSOU defendants.
-33-