48. Use of force.

U.S. District Court EXCESSIVE FORCE

Gallardo v.Dicarlo, 203 F.Supp.2d 1160 (C.D.Cal. 2002). A state prisoner brought a [section] 1983 action against a prison warden alleging Fifth Amendment and state law claims. The district court found that the prisoner stated an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against the warden and that the warden was not entitled to qualified immunity. The prisoner alleged that the warden encouraged the use of excessive force, and that he sustained physical injuries from officers' use of force on him that required a 31-day hospitalization and resulted in permanent physical injuries. (California State Prison, Chino)

U.S. Appeals Court STUN BELT

U.S.v. Durham, 287 F.3d 1297 (11th Cir. 2002). A defendant challenged the use of an electric "stun belt" on him during his trial; his motion was denied by the district court. The defendant was subsequently convicted and appealed. The appeals court vacated and remanded, finding that the district court had abused its discretion by failing to make findings sufficient to justify the use of the stun belt during the trial. According to the court, physical restraints upon a criminal defendant at trial should be used as rarely as possible because their use tends to erode the presumption of innocence that is an integral part of a fair trial. The court held that use of the belt may have had an adverse impact on the defendant's ability to follow the proceedings and to take an active interest in the presentation of his case. The appeals court held that the novelty of the technology employed in the stem belt will likely cause the need for factual findings about the operation of the device, addressing issues such as the criteria for triggering the belt and potential for accidental discharge, to assess the need for its use as compared to less restrictive methods of restraint. The appeals court noted that the district court did not, on the record, consider any less restrictive alternatives to prevent escape and to ensure courtroom safety. The defendant had attempted to escape from a jail and had managed to slip out of a set of leg irons using a key he had concealed on his person. The defendant's attorney argued that the defendant would be "more concerned about receiving such a jolt than he is about thinking about the testimony and giving me aid and assistance in the defense of this case." The court suggested that a stun belt poses "a far more substantial risk of interfering with a defendant's Sixth amendment right to confer with counsel than do leg shackles. The fear of receiving a painful and humiliating shock for any gesture that could be perceived as threatening likely chills a defendant's inclination to make any movements during the trial--including those movements necessary for effective communication with counsel." The appeals court also found that "stun belts have the potential to be highly detrimental to the dignified administration of criminal justice ... If activated, the device poses a serious threat to the dignity and decorum of the courtroom." (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida)

U.S. Appeals Court RESTRAINTS

Williams v. City of Las Vegas, 34 Fed.Appx. 297 (9th Cir. 2002). An arrestee brought a suit against a city and correctional officer alleging the use of excessive force. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants and the appeals court affirmed. The appeals court held that the officer's use of force and restraints when the arrestee refused to cooperate during the booking process was not excessive under either the Eighth Amendment standard for prisoners, nor the Fourteenth Amendment standard for pretrial detainees. The court noted that all of the officer's conduct associated with this claim had been videotaped from three different positions by surveillance cameras. According to the court, the use of waist and leg restraints on the inmate in his jail cell did not violate the Eighth Amendment, where the inmate had refused to stand still during a frisk search and displayed erratic and seemingly uncooperative behavior. (Las Vegas Department of Detention, Nevada)