Irvin v. City of Shaker Heights
809 F. Supp. 2d 719, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92274 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A police officer is not entitled to qualified immunity for an arrest made without probable cause, even if the initial investigatory stop was justified. Furthermore, officers are not entitled to qualified immunity for using excessive force that violates a clearly established right, such as deploying a police dog without a prior warning or using gratuitous violence against a suspect who does not pose a safety risk.
Facts:
- On July 27, 2005, at approximately 10:30 p.m., Rodney Irvin was walking home, pushing his two-year-old daughter in a tricycle.
- Irvin stopped to speak with his former brother-in-law, Bob Nance, who was in a parked vehicle.
- Nance handed Irvin his business card.
- Officer Mastnardo observed what he believed to be a hand-to-hand drug transaction and initiated an investigatory stop.
- According to Irvin's testimony, Mastnardo approached with his gun drawn, his police dog was loose, and he told Irvin he was under arrest shortly after the encounter began.
- A physical altercation ensued, during which Mastnardo's police dog bit Irvin. Irvin testified that he received no warning before the dog was released.
- Irvin also alleged that during the struggle, Mastnardo struck him on the head from behind with a hard object.
- Several backup officers arrived and, according to Irvin, proceeded to hit, kick, and stomp him while he was on the ground.
Procedural Posture:
- Following his arrest, Rodney Irvin was charged with multiple felonies, including assault on a police officer and assault on a police dog.
- A jury found Irvin not guilty on all felony charges; he was later found guilty of a misdemeanor count of child endangerment after entering a nolo contendere plea.
- Irvin filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against the City of Shaker Heights and individual police officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law.
- The defendants filed several motions for summary judgment, asserting qualified immunity for the individual officers and no basis for municipal liability.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Are police officers entitled to qualified immunity on claims of wrongful arrest and excessive force when, after a lawful investigatory stop, they arrest a suspect without probable cause and use force, such as a police dog attack without warning and striking a non-threatening suspect, that violates clearly established Fourth Amendment rights?
Opinions:
Majority - Solomon Oliver, Jr., Chief Judge.
No, police officers are not entitled to qualified immunity for an arrest made without probable cause or for the use of excessive force that violates a clearly established constitutional right. The court divided the encounter into three phases: the stop, the arrest, and the use of force. While Officer Mastnardo had reasonable suspicion for the initial Terry stop based on observing a hand-to-hand exchange in a high-crime area, a constitutional violation occurred when the stop ripened into an arrest almost immediately without probable cause. It is clearly established that an arrest requires probable cause, so Mastnardo is not entitled to qualified immunity for the wrongful seizure claim. Regarding excessive force, Irvin’s right to be free from an un-warned police dog attack and gratuitous blows to the head while not posing an immediate threat were clearly established. Therefore, Mastnardo and the other officers allegedly involved in the beating are not entitled to qualified immunity on the excessive force claims. While the backup officers had probable cause to assist in the arrest upon seeing Irvin struggling with Mastnardo, they are still liable for their own independent use of excessive force.
Analysis:
This case illustrates the granular, moment-by-moment analysis courts apply to Fourth Amendment claims arising from police encounters. It reinforces the principle that a lawful beginning (a valid Terry stop) does not immunize subsequent unconstitutional conduct, such as an arrest without probable cause or the use of excessive force. The decision underscores the Sixth Circuit's bright-line rule requiring a verbal warning before deploying a police dog, making failure to do so a clear violation for qualified immunity purposes. It also affirms that even when backup officers reasonably believe they are assisting a lawful arrest, their own use of force is subject to the Graham v. Connor reasonableness standard, and they can be held liable for gratuitous violence against a non-threatening individual.
Unlock the full brief for Irvin v. City of Shaker Heights