On October 2, 2024, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals decided Edgar v. Brunson[i], in which the court examined whether officers were entitled to qualified immunity after arresting Edgar, who was suffering from a medical condition, for public intoxication.  The relevant facts of Edgar are as follows:

The following facts come from Edgar’s complaint and Officer Brunson’s body camera footage.

One day, someone called the Elba Police Department to express concern for Edgar because he was walking unsteadily on the street. Officer Brunson responded to the call, and Edgar explained that he had ataxia—a neurological disorder that affects a person’s balance and ability to speak clearly. Officer Brunson drove Edgar to his destination without incident.

Six days later, officers responded to a call for assistance where they found Edgar in the street wrapped with a blanket. He told the officers that he needed help, that he was extremely sick, and that he believed that he had COVID-19. Edgar also told the officers that he had ataxia. Although Edgar changed his mind and wanted to return home, the officers insisted that he go to the hospital.

Edgar refused to go to the hospital and staggered away from the officers, as shown on Officer Brunson’s bodycam footage. Edgar then sat down on someone’s porch, and Officer Brunson offered him three choices: go to the hospital, go home, or go to jail. Edgar then stood up, left the porch, stumbled away from the officers, and eventually fell into another person’s yard. One of the house’s occupants told Officer Brunson that Edgar “can go his *** to jail!”

Officer Brunson’s bodycam footage shows a long back-andforth exchange as he pleaded with Edgar to accept medical care and go to the hospital, and Edgar continuously refused and uttered some incoherent statements. Eventually, two officers lifted Edgar to his feet. Officer Brunson tried to put Edgar’s hands behind his back, and Edgar fell forward.

The officers then held Edgar down and attempted to handcuff him. One officer told another to use his taser on Edgar, and he did, at least four times. Edgar continually refused to place his right hand behind his back. Eventually, the officers handcuffed Edgar and took him to jail. Officer Brunson’s bodycam footage shows the jail staff taking custody of Edgar while Officer Brunson filled out an intake form.

Edgar alleges that at some point between his encounter with the officers and his release from jail five days later, he suffered a fractured ankle. He alleges that he asked for medical aid on his way to jail and that request was denied. Edgar alleges that he was diagnosed with an ankle fracture after his release from jail.[ii]

Edgar sued the City of Elba and the officers for false arrest and excessive force under the Fourth Amendment and denial of medical treatment under the Fourteenth Amendment.  He also sued for state law claims that will not be discussed in this article.  The district court dismissed all claims against the defendant city and granted qualified immunity to the officers, thereby also dismissing suit against the officers.

Edgar appealed the dismissal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.   The claims upon which we will focus are the claims for false arrest, excessive force and denial of medical treatment.  Edgar argued that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity.  The court of appeals stated

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity for their actions in performing discretionary functions unless the plaintiff can establish “(1) that the defendant violated her constitutional rights, and (2) that, at the time of the violation, those rights were clearly established in light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad general proposition.” Gaines v. Wardynski, 871 F.3d 1203, 1208 (11th Cir. 2017) (cleaned up). It is undisputed that the officers were acting within their discretionary authority as it relates to the claims here.[iii]

Thus, in order to defeat the officers’ motions for qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that (1) the officers violated his constitutional rights, and (2) that the law was “clearly established” such that a reasonable officer in the same situation would have known he was violating the plaintiff’s rights.

  1. False Arrest

The court examined the legal principles relevant to the claim for false arrest under the Fourth Amendment.  The court stated

An officer violates a person’s Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizures if the officer arrests that person without probable cause to make the arrest.” Garcia v. Casey, 75 F.4th 1176, 1186 (11th Cir. 2023). “But to establish the defense of qualified immunity for a false arrest claim, we have held that ‘an officer need not have actual probable cause, but only “arguable” probable cause.‘” Id. (quoting Brown v. City of Huntsville, 608 F.3d 724, 734 (11th Cir. 2010)). And “[a]n officer has arguable probable cause if ‘a reasonable officer, looking at the entire legal landscape at the time of the arrests, could have interpreted the law as permitting the arrests.'” Id. at 1187 (quoting District of Columbia v. Wesby, 583 U.S. 48, 68, 138 S. Ct. 577, 199 L. Ed. 2d 453 (2018)).[iv]

Simply put, an officer is entitled to qualified immunity for a false arrest claim as long as the officer had “arguable probable cause,” which means that another reasonable officer in the same position could have believed probable cause existed to arrest the plaintiff.

Additionally, the arguable probable cause can even be for a different crime than that which they were charged.  The court of appeals explained

Moreover, “[u]nder the ‘any-crime rule’ an officer is ‘insulate[d] from false-arrest claims so long as probable cause existed to arrest the suspect for some crime, even if it was not the crime the officer thought or said had occurred.'” Id. (quoting Williams v. Aguirre, 965 F.3d 1147, 1158 (11th Cir. 2020)). When we apply the any-crime rule “to qualified immunity, an officer is entitled to qualified immunity if he had arguable probable cause to arrest a suspect for any crime, even if that crime was not ‘the offense announced by the officer at the time of the arrest.'” Id. (quoting Lee v. Ferraro, 284 F.3d 1188, 1195-96 (11th Cir. 2002)).[v]

In Edgar’s case, he was arrested for public intoxication.  The officers argued that not only was there arguable probable cause to believe that he was intoxicated, but there was also arguable probable cause to believe that he was trespassing in violation of Alabama law.  Specifically, in Alabama, a person commits criminal trespass in the third degree when “he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises.”[vi]

The court of appeals also examined the public intoxication statute which states, in part,

[A] person commits the crime of public intoxication if he appears in a public place under the influence of alcohol, narcotics or other drug to the degree that he endangers himself or another person or property, or by boisterous and offensive conduct annoys another person in his vicinity.” Ala. Code § 13A-11-10.[vii]

The court of appeals then examined the body camera video of Edgar during the incident.  The court noted that it showed Edgar “stumbling, falling over, and speaking in an incoherent manner while entering three separate private properties and shouting some indiscernible words and throwing a blanket over his head upon his final fall before officers attempted to handcuff him.”[viii]

Edgar argued that his physical manifestations were caused by a medical condition called ataxia, of which the officers knew he had based on their prior encounter with him.  Regarding Edgars argument, the court of appeals stated

[E]ven though Edgar’s ataxia could have caused those behaviors, his condition does not rule out the possibility that he was also under the influence of drugs or alcohol.  Based on our review of the video, it was reasonable for the officers to conclude that Edgar was publicly intoxicated to the degree that he was a danger to himself or others.[ix]

Therefore, the court of appeals held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on the false arrest claim.

2.Excessive Force

Edgars only allegation for excessive force was that, since officers lacked probable cause to arrest him, any force used to effect the false arrest was excessive.  Edgar did not allege any specific act of the officer’s use of force was excessive.  The court of appeals stated

[W]hen, like here, an excessive force claim ‘is predicated solely on allegations the arresting officer lacked the power to make an arrest, the excessive force claim is entirely derivative of, and is subsumed within, the unlawful arrest claim.'” Khoury v. Miami-Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd., 4 F.4th 1118, 1130 (11th Cir. 2021) (quoting Bashir v. Rockdale County, 445 F.3d 1323, 1332 (11th Cir. 2006)).[x]

In other words, since the excessive force claim was based solely on the premise that the officers lacked the legal power to arrest him so any force to arrest was excessive, and since the court held that a reasonable officer could conclude that Edgar was violating the public intoxication law, the excessive force claim is disposed of based upon the ruling regarding the false arrest claim. Edgar did not allege that any specific act or method the officers used when arresting him was excessive. Thus, the court of appeals held the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on the excessive force claim.

3. Denial of Medical Treatment

The court first noted that a denial of medical treatment claim is based on the Fourteenth Amendment and is governed by the “deliberate indifference” standard.  The court further stated

A deliberate-indifference claim entails both an objective and a subjective component.” Keohane v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr. Sec’y, 952 F.3d 1257, 1266 (11th Cir. 2020). The objective component requires the plaintiff to allege “‘an objectively serious medical need’—that is, ‘one that has been diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment or one that is so obvious that even a lay person would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor’s attention’—that, ‘if left unattended, poses a substantial risk of serious harm.'” Id. (quoting Brown v. Johnson, 387 F.3d 1344, 1351 (11th Cir. 2004)). The subjective component requires the plaintiff to allege that “the defendant acted with ‘subjective recklessness as used in the criminal law,’ and to do so he must show that the defendant was actually, subjectively aware that his own conduct caused a substantial risk of serious harm to the plaintiff.” Wade v. McDade, 106 F.4th 1251, 1262 (11th Cir. 2024) (en banc) (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 839, 114 S. Ct. 1970, 128 L. Ed. 2d 811 (1994) (citation omitted)). But “even if the defendant ‘actually knew of a substantial risk to inmate health or safety,’ he ‘cannot be found liable . . .’ if he ‘responded reasonably to the risk.'” Id. (quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at 844-45).[xi]

The court also noted that, even though Edgar alleged that the officers knew he had an injured ankle (he alleges he told them so), Edgar never alleged the officers were deliberately indifferent to his injury.  In fact, as noted by the court, the body camera video shows that officers repeatedly requested that Edgar accept medical care and go to the hospital, but Edgar refused.  The court stated

The officers offered Edgar the opportunity to accept medical care at the scene of the arrest, which he refused, and then they took him to jail where his care was transferred to others.[xii]

Thus, even if one assumes the officers knew of Edgar’s serious medical need, the officers were not deliberately indifferent to his medical need because they offered medical assistance to him via going to the hospital.  Further, after they arrested him, they transferred his care to the jail.

Therefore, the officers were entitled to summary judgment on this claim and it was properly dismissed by the district court.

As such, the court of appeals affirmed the decision of the district court.

Practice Pointer:

  • When an officer calls an ambulance to come to the scene to evaluate a suspect, this generally will defeat a claim that an officer was deliberately indifferent to a suspect’s medical needs.
  • The body camera video assisted the officers in this case because it independently supported the officers’ testimony regarding the physical manifestations that supported their belief that Edgar was intoxicated. Officers should be mindful of activating their body cameras on incidents, as it may later be relevant in protecting them from civil liability.

Note:  Court holdings can vary significantly between jurisdictions.  As such, it is advisable to seek the advice of a local prosecutor or legal adviser regarding questions on specific cases.  This article is not intended to constitute legal advice on a specific case.

__________________________________________

Citations

[i] No. 24-10412 (11th Cir.  October 2, 2024 Unpublished)

[ii] Id. at 1-3

[iii] Id. at 8 (emphasis added)

[iv] Id. (emphasis added)

[v] Id. at 8-9 (emphasis added)

[vi] Id. at 9

[vii] Id.

[viii] Id. at 10

[ix] Id. at 11

[x] Id. at 11-12 (emphasis added)

[xi] Id. at 13-14 (emphasis added)

[xii] Id. at 15