Greenidge v. Ruffin
1991 WL 29069, 927 F. 2d 789 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The reasonableness of a law enforcement officer's use of force under the Fourth Amendment must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene at the moment the force is used, excluding events that occurred prior to that moment.
Facts:
- On May 12, 1988, Baltimore City Police Officer Ernestine Ruffin was working undercover for the vice squad when she observed a suspected prostitute enter a vehicle with Leonard Greenidge.
- Ruffin and three other plain-clothes officers in unmarked cars followed the vehicle until it parked.
- The officers approached the parked car from different directions without using flashlights.
- Officer Ruffin observed an illegal sex act in progress, opened the driver-side door, identified herself as a police officer with her badge visible, and ordered the occupants to show their hands.
- When Greenidge and the other passenger did not comply, Ruffin drew her revolver, pointed it into the car, and repeated the order.
- Ruffin then observed Greenidge reach for a long, cylindrical object from behind the seat, which she believed to be a shotgun.
- In response to this perceived threat, Ruffin fired her weapon, striking Greenidge in the jaw and causing permanent injury.
- The object Greenidge reached for was later determined to be a wooden nightstick.
Procedural Posture:
- Leonard Greenidge sued Officer Ernestine Ruffin in federal district court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging excessive force.
- Before trial, the judge granted Ruffin's motion for a protective order, denying Greenidge's request for a videotaped deposition re-enactment of the shooting.
- At trial, the judge excluded evidence offered by Greenidge regarding Officer Ruffin's alleged violations of police procedure leading up to the shooting.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of defendant Ruffin on all counts.
- Greenidge, as appellant, appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, challenging the evidentiary rulings.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Fourth Amendment's 'objective reasonableness' standard for excessive force claims permit the admission of evidence concerning an officer's actions leading up to the moment of the arrest?
Opinions:
Majority - Edward S. Smith, Senior Circuit Judge
No. The Fourth Amendment's objective reasonableness standard requires that an officer's use of force be evaluated based on the circumstances at the moment the force is used, not on the events leading up to that moment. The Supreme Court's decision in Graham v. Connor established that the reasonableness inquiry must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, embodying an allowance for the split-second judgments required in tense situations. This standard focuses on the 'reasonableness at the moment' of the decision to use force. Therefore, evidence of an officer's alleged violation of police procedures prior to the moment of confrontation, such as failing to use a flashlight or proper backup, is not probative of the reasonableness of the decision to use deadly force and is inadmissible. The court's reasoning aligns with precedent from other circuits which holds that liability is determined 'exclusively upon an examination and weighing of the information [the officers] possessed immediately prior to and at the very moment' the shot was fired.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the temporal scope of the reasonableness inquiry in Fourth Amendment excessive force cases. By excluding evidence of an officer's conduct leading up to the moment of confrontation, the ruling makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to argue that an officer's own tactical errors or procedural violations negligently or recklessly created the dangerous situation that necessitated the use of force. This precedent reinforces a focus on the officer's split-second decision-making, thereby strengthening the legal protection for officers who use force in rapidly evolving circumstances. Consequently, future litigation in this area will be constrained to the facts known to the officer at the precise moment force was applied, limiting the broader context a jury can consider.
