On October 18, 2024, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals decided Coriell v. Snyder[i], in which the court examined whether an officer violated the Fourth Amendment when the officer tased a passenger on a traffic stop when the passenger pushed the officer and fled on foot. The relevant facts of Coriell are as follows:
Snyder pulled over a vehicle for a routine traffic stop because it was missing a license plate. In addition to the driver, there were two passengers in the car, including Coriell. Before questioning the driver about the missing license plate, Snyder asked for identification from the vehicle’s occupants. Both passengers claimed that they had no identification, so Snyder asked them to write down their names and dates of birth. According to Coriell, he “gave a fictitious name and date of birth because he did not want the officer to know that he was on probation and had failed to satisfy conditions of his probation because he was homeless and had no money.” Doc. 19 ¶ 13.
Snyder attempted to confirm the passengers’ identities with the police department. While waiting for confirmation, Snyder reported to a second officer at the scene that the vehicle’s occupants were “jumpy, not wanting to give [him] information, [and] not wanting [him] to stand next to the car.” Doc. 46 at 07:43-07:48. After the police department reported that a search for the names produced no results, Snyder again approached the vehicle and asked whether the information Coriell provided was correct. Coriell gave a different fictious first name but otherwise confirmed that the name and date of birth he had given were accurate. The other passenger similarly confirmed that the information he provided was accurate. Snyder returned to his squad car and again confirmed that the passengers provided inaccurate identification information. He further reported to the police department that the driver had been standoffish and that he needed to follow up with the driver regarding his vehicle registration. Snyder decided to ask all occupants of the vehicle to step out, starting with Coriell.
Snyder approached the rear passenger seat where Coriell was sitting and asked him to step out of the vehicle. Coriell initially protested but eventually complied. The moment he exited the vehicle, he pushed Snyder, evaded Snyder’s grasp, and fled across the grass at the side of the road toward the parking lot of a nearby restaurant. Within two seconds, Snyder drew his taser and shouted “taser, taser.” Doc. 46 at 18:55-18:57.
While Coriell was running through the grass, Snyder fired his taser and delivered a single shock. The taser caused Coriell’s body to go rigid, and his momentum carried him into the restaurant parking lot. He crashed face first into the asphalt and “suffer[ed] facial lacerations, a fractured skull, . . . hemorrhaging of the brain, as well as a concussion with lasting effects.” Doc. 19 ¶ 21.
Snyder then arrested Coriell, recovering a cellphone, a glass pipe with drug residue, and a prison release identification card. The State of Georgia charged Coriell with giving false information, obstruction of an officer, possession of crack cocaine, and possession of drug-related objects. Coriell pleaded guilty to all four charges.[ii]
Coriell sued the officer and the city for excessive force under the Fourth Amendment and for various state law claims. This article will not discuss the state law claims. The officer filed a motion for qualified immunity and the city filed a motion for summary judgment. The district court granted the officer’s motion for qualified immunity holding that the officer’s use of force was objectively reasonable. The district court also granted the city’s motion for summary judgment because there was no constitutional violation.
Coriell appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The court explained qualified immunity and noted that, for a plaintiff to defeat the officer’s motion for qualified immunity, the plaintiff must satisfy a two-prong test. First, the plaintiff must show that the officer violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment. Second, the plaintiff must show that, at the time of the violation, the law was clearly established such that every reasonable officer would have known his conduct was violation the plaintiff’s rights.
The court of appeals then discussed the legal principles that govern excessive force cases. The court stated
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution provides a “right of the people to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures.” “The Fourth Amendment‘s freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures encompasses the plain right to be free from the use of excessive force in the course of an arrest.” Lee, 284 F.3d at 1197. In excessive force cases, the question of whether a plaintiff’s constitutional rights were violated is answered using the Fourth Amendment‘s objective reasonableness standard. Baker, 67 F.4th at 1279. “Reasonableness is the touchstone for all excessive force claims, regardless of whether the force used was deadly.” Hammett v. Paulding County, 875 F.3d 1036, 1048 (11th Cir. 2017). In assessing reasonableness, we must judge the facts “from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” Manners, 891 F.3d at 973 (internal quotation marks omitted). This is because “[t]he 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—about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396-97, 109 S. Ct. 1865, 104 L. Ed. 2d 443 (1989). The amount of force used by an officer “must be reasonably proportionate to the need for that force.” Lee, 284 F.3d at 1198.
In evaluating an excessive-force claim, we look to the non-exhaustive list of factors the Supreme Court set out in Graham. See 490 U.S. at 396. These factors include: “the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.” Id. We also consider “the need for the application of force, the relationship between the need and the amount of force used, [and] the extent of the injury inflicted.” Baker, 67 F.4th at 1279.[iii]
The court of appeals then set out to apply the principles above to the facts of Coriell’s case. The first factor from Graham v. Connor is the severity of the crime at issue. Initially, the court noted that the crimes, providing a false name (a misdemeanor) and misdemeanor obstruction of an officer, are relatively minor crimes. The court noted that this does not weigh in the officer’s favor.
The second factor from Graham, is whether the suspect posed an immediate threat to the officer or others. The court stated that, when Coriell fled, the officer had “no reason to believe that he posed a threat of violence” or that he was armed.[iv] However, the court also stated that
[N]o threat of violence was required to justify a single use of the taser to stop Coriell once he physically resisted arrest and fled. See Baker, 67 F.4th at 1280.[v]
The third factor from Graham is whether the suspect actively resisted or attempted to evade arrest by flight. This factor weighed in favor of the officer’s use of the Taser. Coriell argued that he did not actively resist or push the officer; rather, he said he only fled. The court of appeals, however, noted that while they are typically required to accept the plaintiff’s version of events at this stage of the litigation, they are not required to accept the plaintiff’s version of events if it is contradicted by video evidence.
The court then observed the officer’s body camera video and car camera video and both showed that Coriell did, in fact, push the officer before he fled on foot. This push constitutes active resistance. Thus, Coriell both actively resisted the officer and attempted to evade arrest by flight.
The court also considered the extent of Coriell’s injuries, which, as alleged, were serious. Specifically, during his fall onto pavement, he alleged he sustained a skull fracture, a subdural hematoma, and a concussion, with lasting effects. The court then discussed the seriousness of the injuries and stated
A final factor—the extent of the injury—weighs in Coriell’s favor. Tragically, he suffered serious injuries when he fell onto the asphalt after being shocked with the taser. He suffered a skull fracture, a subdural hematoma, and a concussion, injuries from which he continues to suffer lasting effects. “In the Eleventh Circuit, [however,] we recognize that the typical arrest involves some force and injury.” Rodriguez v. Farrell, 280 F.3d 1341, 1351 (11th Cir. 2002). We also recognize that tasers are typically non-deadly weapons that do not generally inflict serious injury. Baker, 67 F.4th at 1280. Snyder’s bodycam footage indicates that when he deployed his taser, Coriell was still running in the grass, and so a reasonable officer in Snyder’s position would not have known or suspected that Coriell would land face first on the asphalt. Thus, under the totality of the circumstances, the extent of the injury Coriell suffered does not mean that it was unreasonable for Snyder to use a taser to stop him.[vi]
Despite the factors that weighed in favor of Coriell, the court of appeals held that the single use of the taser to stop a suspect who was actively resisting and fleeing on foot was objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The court also noted that
[T]he amount of force was reasonable because, “where a suspect appears . . . uncooperative, use of a taser might be preferable to a physical struggle” that could have led to further harm to the officer or the suspect. Smith v. LePage, 834 F.3d 1285, 1294 (11th Cir. 2016)[vii]
The court of appeals then held
After considering these factors, we conclude that Snyder’s single use of the taser was objectively reasonable under the circumstances. Coriell was both actively resisting arrest and attempting to evade arrest by flight. Upon exiting the vehicle, Coriell pushed Snyder away and resisted Snyder’s attempts to restrain him. He then fled on foot. Snyder used his taser to halt Coriell’s attempted flight. He did not use more force than was necessary. He deployed “a single use of the taser gun causing a one-time shocking,” which was proportionate to the need to stop Coriell from fleeing arrest. Draper v. Reynolds, 369 F.3d 1270, 1274 (11th Cir. 2004). Moreover, the amount of force was reasonable because, “where a suspect appears . . . uncooperative, use of a taser might be preferable to a physical struggle” that could have led to further harm to the officer or the suspect. Smith v. LePage, 834 F.3d 1285, 1294 (11th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). Further supporting the proportionality of the force applied is the fact that Snyder applied no additional force after Coriell stopped resisting arrest and complied with officer instructions.[viii]
Coriell argued that being tased in close proximity to pavement was similar to Bradley v. Benton, 10 F.4th 1232 (11th Cir. 2021), where the Eleventh Circuit held that it was unconstitutional to use a taser on a fleeing suspect who was on top of an eight-foot wall. In that case the suspect fell from the wall and sustained serious injuries. The court of appeals disagreed with Coriell and stated
The facts of [Coriell’s] case are very different from the facts of Bradley. [Officer] Snyder made the decision to use his taser within two seconds of Coriell’s flight and called out a warning before using the taser. As we have explained, the bodycam footage shows that Coriell was running in the grass when Snyder gave the warning and deployed his taser. Unlike falling from a high wall, not every reasonable officer would have known of the likelihood of serious injury from falling where Coriell was when he was tased.[ix]
Therefore, the court of appeals held that the use of the taser was objectively reasonable in this situation. Therefore, the officer was entitled to qualified immunity.
Because Coriell was unable to establish a constitutional violation, his claim against the city also failed. Therefore, the court of appeals affirmed the grant of summary judgment for the city.
Note: Court holdings can vary significantly between jurisdictions. As such, it is advisable to consult a local prosecutor or legal adviser regarding questions concerning specific cases. This article is not intended to constitute legal advice on a specific case.
___________________________________________
Citations
[i] No. 23-12746 (11th Cir. October 18, 2024 Unpublished)
[ii] Id. at 2-4
[iii] Id. at 7-8 (emphasis added)
[iv] Id. at 11
[v] Id. (emphasis added)
[vi] Id. at 11-12 (emphasis added)
[vii] Id. at 9 (emphasis added)
[viii] Id. at 8-9 (emphasis added)
[ix] Id. at 13
