United States v. Carl Harold Myers
1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 23302, 1992 WL 216189, 972 F.2d 1566 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Fourth Amendment's objective reasonableness standard governs claims of excessive force by law enforcement against an arrestee who has been taken into custody but has not yet been convicted of a crime.
Facts:
- On August 25, 1988, Doraville police arrested Frederick Cowan, who was intoxicated and disruptive at the police station, yelling and kicking his cell bars.
- Captain Carl Harold Myers, the watch commander, retrieved his personal, unauthorized stun gun, which his superiors had previously forbidden him from using.
- Myers entered Cowan's cell and, after Cowan did not comply with an order, shocked him in the chest with the stun gun.
- While another officer shackled the now-handcuffed Cowan to a bunk, Myers shocked Cowan a second time in the groin area.
- On September 21, 1989, police arrested Cesar Yanez, who was also intoxicated and yelling obscenities and threats at officers.
- While Yanez was being moved and searched, he complied with orders to place his hands against a wall.
- During the search, Myers shocked Yanez with the stun gun multiple times in the back and neck area.
- Another officer later observed six pairs of scabbed burn marks on Yanez's back consistent with a stun gun.
Procedural Posture:
- Carl Harold Myers was charged in a federal district court for violating the civil rights of Frederick Cowan and Cesar Yanez, while acting under color of law, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242.
- On March 8, 1991, a jury convicted Myers on two counts.
- The district court sentenced Myers to twelve months imprisonment for the violation against Cowan and eighteen months for the violation against Yanez, to be served concurrently, and imposed a fine.
- Myers, as the appellant, filed a timely appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
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, rather than the Eighth Amendment's 'malicious and sadistic' standard, apply to a police officer's use of force against an arrestee who has been taken into custody but has not yet been convicted of a crime?
Opinions:
Majority - Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge
Yes. The Fourth Amendment's 'objective reasonableness' standard applies to claims of excessive force used against arrestees prior to their conviction. The court reasoned that the Supreme Court's precedent in Graham v. Connor clearly establishes that the Eighth Amendment's protections against cruel and unusual punishment apply only after a person has been formally convicted of a crime. For individuals who have been arrested but not convicted, claims of excessive force are properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable seizures. Therefore, the district court correctly instructed the jury to assess Myers's actions based on the degree of force a 'reasonable and prudent officer' would have applied under the same circumstances, rather than the more stringent Eighth Amendment standard which requires showing malicious and sadistic intent to cause harm.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the constitutional framework established in Graham v. Connor, clearly delineating the standards for excessive force based on an individual's legal status. It solidifies that arrestees and pre-trial detainees receive the protection of the Fourth Amendment's objective reasonableness standard, which is more protective than the Eighth Amendment standard applied to convicted prisoners. The ruling provides a clear precedent for lower courts in cases involving force used during the post-arrest, pre-conviction period. This distinction is critical for holding law enforcement accountable for unreasonable force used against individuals who are still presumed innocent.
