Home Daily News Ferguson cops must face excessive force suit;…

Criminal Justice

Ferguson cops must face excessive force suit; plaintiff was charged for bleeding on their uniforms

A federal appeals court has reinstated a suit by a motorist who claims police officers in Ferguson, Missouri, used excessive force against him and then charged him with property damage for bleeding on their uniforms.

The St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Tuesday for Henry Davis, allowing his claims for excessive force and assault. The court also allowed an assault counterclaim by an officer who suffered a broken nose during the scuffle.

The incident occurred after Davis’ September 2009 arrest for allegedly driving while intoxicated, according to the appeals court opinion (PDF). Davis was taken to a cell in the overcrowded jail where the only bunk was occupied, so Davis asked for a mat from a nearby stack. An officer refused because Davis was not cooperating, and Davis refused to enter his cell.

Davis was pushed inside and a fight began. At the end, the officer with the broken nose and Davis went to the emergency room, though Davis refused treatment. Davis went to another emergency room after his release two days later, where he was diagnosed with a concussion and a scalp laceration.

There was no video of the fight. Some testimony supported Davis’ claim that three officers beat or kicked him after he was handcuffed and subdued on the floor. One officer filed complaints against Davis for property damage for bleeding on the uniforms of four officers.

Davis later pleaded guilty to careless driving, speeding and two counts of destruction of city property. Prior coverage by Courthouse News Service says Davis is African American.

The district court had found the officers were protected by qualified immunity on the excessive force claim because of cases indicating a de minimis injury wasn’t a constitutional violation. “As unreasonable as it may sound,” the district court had said, “a reasonable officer could have believed that beating a subdued and compliant Mr. Davis while causing only a concussion, scalp laceration, and bruising with almost no permanent damage did not violate the Constitution.”

The appeals said it disagreed with that conclusion, and said no cases have held that a concussion and scalp laceration are de minimis. The appeals court also allowed Davis’ assault claim, saying immunity doesn’t apply to discretionary acts done in bad faith or with malice.

The appeals court, however, upheld dismissal of Davis’ claim for violation of his substantive due process rights due to the property damage charge for bleeding on the uniforms. The officer who filed the charges said he relied on instructions by a superior and had no problems doing so because of the blood he saw. The appeals court agreed with the district court’s conclusion that the charges didn’t shock the conscience, a required element for such claims.