The Use by Law Enforcement of Excessive Force and Civil Liability

• The Eighth Amendment and the Excessive Use of Force on a Jail Escapee
• Civil Liability for the Use of Excessive Force
• The Value of Bodycams in Excessive Force Cases
• The Use of a Police Dog in Making an Arrest
• Duty to Intercede in the Excessive Use of Force

In a motion for summary judgment in a civil suit, a court is to assume that the non-moving party’s version of the facts is true.  An exception to this rule is when evidence exists that “blatantly contradicts” the non-moving party’s evidence.  A duty to intercede in the use of excessive force does not apply when an officer has no opportunity to do so.

Plaintiff Corey Hughes was merely 10 days into his six month jail sentence being served at the San Joaquin County Jail when he decided he had better things to do with his life.  So while working on a highway work crew, he decided to just take some time off—going over the fence, . . . literally.  A California Department of Corrections Fugitive Apprehension Team—led by Agent Chris Rodriguez—and other local agencies began an immediate search for Hughes.  Three weeks after his escape, Agent Rodriguez developed information (the informant being the mother of Hughes’ children.) to the effect that Hughes was hiding at the Stockton home of a friend.  What the agents knew of Hughes at the time was that he (1) had prior convictions for possession of a stolen vehicle, weapons possession, and evading a peace officer with a disregard for safety, (2) was affiliated with a violent street gang, (3) had training in mixed martial arts, and (4) abused methamphetamine. These facts led Agent Rodriguez to conclude that Hughes was potentially a dangerous person. So, on December 21, 2017, when they went to check the house where he was allegedly hiding, the officers took the appropriate measures to insure ....