On December 14, 2023, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals decided Fields v. City of Tulsa[i], which serves as excellent review of the law related to excessive force. The relevant facts of Fields are as follows:
Tameko Warren dialed 911 from the parking lot of a QuikTrip convenience store in Tulsa reporting that her soon-to-be ex-husband, Earnest Fields, was deflating her tires. She added that he was armed with a hammer, which he had just used to tap on her car window. When officers Cherish Comfort, Jill Sallee, and Lucas Temple arrived at the scene, Ms. Warren was still in her parked car, while Mr. Fields had gone inside the convenience store.
The officers’ interactions with Mr. Fields were captured on their body cameras. Officer Temple entered the convenience store and instructed Mr. Fields to stay inside while he and Officer Sallee questioned Ms. Warren in the parking lot. Disregarding Officer Comfort’s instruction to stay inside the store, Mr. Fields strode towards the exit, stating that he intended to refuel his truck before answering any questions. Officer Comfort replied that Mr. Fields was detained, and Officers Comfort and Temple both reiterated that he could not go outside to refuel his car. Undeterred, Mr. Fields slammed some of his belongings onto the store’s counter and stormed out the door. Officer Comfort tackled him from behind and handcuffed him.
After further investigation, no charges were filed against Mr. Fields.[ii]
Fields sued the City of Tulsa and Officers Temple and Comfort for violating his right to be free from an unlawful arrest and excessive force, both under the Fourth Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment for the city and qualified immunity for the officers. Fields appealed to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.
On appeal, Fields argued that (1) the officers lacked legal justification to detain him, and (2) the officers used excessive force when they tackled him.
The court of appeals first discussed the standard for granting qualified immunity and stated
A § 1983 defendant’s assertion of qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that creates a presumption that the defendant is immune from suit.” Truman v. Orem City, 1 F.4th 1227, 1235 (10th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). “To overcome this presumption, the plaintiff must show (1) the defendant’s actions violated a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) that right was clearly established at the time of the defendant’s complained-of conduct.” Id. “A right is clearly established when a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit decision is on point, or if the clearly established weight of authority from other courts shows that the right must be as the plaintiff maintains.” Id.[iii]
The court of appeals then examined whether the officers violated Fields’s rights under the Fourth Amendment when they detained him. At the outset the court of appeals noted that an officer can detain a person if there is reasonable suspicion that the person may be involved in criminal activity. Specifically, the court stated
An officer can stop and briefly detain a person for investigative purposes if the officer has a reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts that criminal activity may be afoot, even if the officer lacks probable cause.” Cortez v. McCauley, 478 F.3d 1108, 1115 (10th Cir. 2007) (en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted). “The reasonable suspicion necessary to justify such a stop is dependent upon both the content of information possessed by police and its degree of reliability.” Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393, 397, 134 S. Ct. 1683, 188 L. Ed. 2d 680 (2014) (internal quotations omitted). “Although a mere ‘hunch’ does not create reasonable suspicion, the level of suspicion the standard requires is considerably less than proof of wrongdoing by a preponderance of the evidence, and obviously less than is necessary for probable cause.” Id.[iv]
The court of appeals also discussed warrantless arrest, since Fields was tackled and placed in handcuffs. The court stated
[A] “warrantless arrest is reasonable if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect committed a crime in the officer’s presence.” District of Columbia v. Wesby, 583 U.S. 48, 56, 138 S. Ct. 577, 199 L. Ed. 2d 453 (2018) (Thomas, J.). “To determine whether an officer had probable cause for an arrest, we examine the events leading up to the arrest, and then decide whether these historical facts, viewed from the standpoint of an objectively reasonable police officer, amount to probable cause.” Id. at 56-57 (internal quotation marks omitted).[v]
The court of appeals then examined the relevant facts of Fields case. The facts show that Ms. Warren called 911 and reported that Fields hit her car window with a hammer, let air out of her tires, and was blocking her travel. The court of appeals held that this was sufficient to provide the officers with reasonable suspicion that Fields may have been committing felony domestic assault under Oklahoma’s domestic assault statutes.
When the officers attempted to detain Fields in the store so that Ms. Warren could be interviewed outside the store, Fields argued with the officers, slammed his items onto the countertop in the store, refused officers verbal commands not to exit the store, and quickly exited the store. The court of appeals stated
In addition to the reasonableness of the investigative detention, Mr. Fields’s failure to cooperate with the officers provided them with probable cause to suspect that he had violated Oklahoma’s obstruction of justice statute. Under Oklahoma law, “[e]very person who willfully delays or obstructs any public officer in the discharge or attempt to discharge any duty of his or her office, is guilty of a misdemeanor.” Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 540. The officers asked Mr. Fields to remain in the convenience store so that they could question Ms. Warren, his alleged victim, in the parking lot. When Mr. Fields disobeyed these orders and instead insisted upon going to the parking lot, the officers had probable cause to believe that he intended to obstruct their investigation. First, “flight can constitute obstruction of an officer.” United States v. Sanchez, 555 F.3d 910, 919 (10th Cir. 2009). Mr. Fields knew that he was the target of an investigation, and disobeyed orders to remain in the store. In addition, Mr. Fields’s presence in the parking lot, coupled with his demonstrated refusal to abide the officers’ instructions, could have disrupted the questioning of Ms. Warren.[vi]
Therefore, since the officers had reasonable suspicion to initially detain Fields and then probable cause to arrest Fields for “obstruction,” the false arrest claims under the Fourth Amendment fail and the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.
The court of appeals then examined whether the officers violated the Fourth Amendment when they tackled Fields to the ground. The court first discussed the legal principles relevant to this issue and stated
The precise question asked in an excessive force case is ‘whether the officers’ actions are ‘objectively reasonable’ in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation.'” Thomson v. Salt Lake Cnty., 584 F.3d 1304, 1313 (10th Cir. 2009) (quoting Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396, 109 S. Ct. 1865, 104 L. Ed. 2d 443 (1989)). The so-called Graham factors relevant to this inquiry include “[1] the severity of the crime at issue, [2] whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and [3] whether [the suspect] is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.” Graham, 490 U.S. at 396. In addition to the Graham factors, we have looked at other indicia of reasonableness in evaluating excessive force claims. For example, we have held that courts may also consider the likelihood of resistance by third parties when evaluating excessive use of force. Estate of Redd v. Love, 848 F.3d 899, 907-908 (10th Cir. 2017).[vii]
The court then discussed the three factors from Graham v. Connor. First, the court looked at the severity of the crime at issue. The court noted this factor weighed in favor of the officers because they were investigating a possible felony assault. The court stated
[T]he first Graham factor weighs against the plaintiff when the crime at issue is a felony, irrespective of whether that felony is violent or nonviolent.” Vette v. K-9 Unit Deputy Sanders, 989 F.3d 1154, 1170 (10th Cir. 2021).[viii]
Specifically, in Fields’ case, the officers were investigating whether he had assaulted his ex-wife with a hammer, which is a felony under Oklahoma law.
The court then examined the second factor from Graham, specifically, whether the suspect posed an immediate threat to the officers or others. The court noted the relevant facts were (1) the officers were investigating whether Fields had assaulted his ex-wife with a hammer, (2) they believed he may be in possession of a hammer, (3) he became increasingly more hostile as the encounter progressed, and (4) he refused to follow the officer’s verbal commands. The court of appeals stated that under the circumstances, the officers were “reasonable in perceiving a threat.”[ix]
The court then examined the third factor from Graham, specifically whether the suspect was actively resisting arrest or attempting to flee. The relevant facts were that, after the officers repeatedly told Fields to stay in the store, he “disobeyed orders” and “darted toward his car.”[x] The court stated that the officers could reasonably believe this was an attempt to flee.
The court then stated
The officers’ decision to retain him was justifiable and proportionate considering this risk.[xi]
The court also examined, for the sake of argument, whether the law was clearly established such that a reasonable officer would know that it was not permissible to tackle Fields in this situation. The court stated
Mr. Fields bears the burden not only of showing that they violated his right, but that “the contours of the right [are] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” Thomas v. Kaven, 765 F.3d 1183, 1194 (10th Cir. 2014). He must point to a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit opinion—or “the clearly established weight of authority from other courts”—holding that use of force is excessive in analogous circumstances.[xii]
The court of appeals examined the caselaw provided by Fields and noted that it did not clearly establish the law in his favor.
Therefore, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on both the false arrest claim and the excessive force claim.
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. 23-5001 (10th Cir. Decided December 14, 2023 Unpublished)
[ii] Id. at 1-2
[iii] Id. at 3 (emphasis added)
[iv] Id. at 3-4 (emphasis added)
[v] Id. at 4 (emphasis added)
[vi] Id. at 6-7
[vii] Id. at 8 (emphasis added)
[viii] Id. (emphasis added)
[ix] Id. at 9
[x] Id. at 10
[xi] Id. at 10-11
[xii] Id. at 11
