ILNews

7th Circuit reverses ruling on police excessive force

Michael W. Hoskins
April 16, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has decided that a prisoner should have the chance to proceed on a federal claim of police using unreasonable force during and after his arrest for which he's been convicted at the state level.

A unanimous panel ruled today on Ty Evans v. Frank Poskon, et al., No. 09-3140, which comes from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. The appellate judges reversed and remanded a ruling from U.S. Judge David F. Hamilton, who'd ruled on the case last year before he was elevated to that appellate bench.

Evans was arrested in 2005 for attempted murder and resisting arrest, and was convicted and sentenced to 71 years in prison. But as a prisoner proceeding pro se, he filed a federal suit in May 2007 accusing police of violating his Fourth Amendment rights by using excessive force during and after a police raid of his home. Judge Hamilton granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding that Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), barred the 42 U.S.C. §1983 claim because Evans' assertion that he didn't oppose being taken into custody contradicts his conviction. Unless the resisting-arrest conviction was set aside, Evans could have no valid §1983 claim, the judge ruled.

But analyzing that decision, the panel found that Judge Hamilton didn't address nor did any of the attorneys apply another case that had been handed down just months before Evans filed his federal claim. The nation's top court in February 2007 issued a decision in Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (2007), that held a claim that actually starts before a criminal conviction may and usually must be filed without regard to the conviction's validity. This would apply here so that Evans' claim about excessive force began before he was ultimately convicted and sentenced, the appellate court ruled.

Two of the three accusations Evans raises - that police used excessive force to arrest him and that they beat him severely even after taking custody of him - can proceed because they are compatible with his resisting-arrest conviction, Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote. The third, that he didn't resist being taken into custody, cannot proceed.

"Evans is entitled to an opportunity to prove that the defendants used unreasonable force during and after his arrest," the chief judge wrote.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I was looking through some of your blog posts on this internet site and I conceive this web site is rattling informative ! Keep on posting . dfkcfdkdgbekdffe

  2. Don't believe me, listen to Pacino: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6bC9w9cH-M

  3. Law school is social control the goal to produce a social product. As such it began after the Revolution and has nearly ruined us to this day: "“Scarcely any political question arises in the United States which is not resolved, sooner or later, into a judicial question. Hence all parties are obliged to borrow, in their daily controversies, the ideas, and even the language, peculiar to judicial proceedings. As most public men [i.e., politicians] are, or have been, legal practitioners, they introduce the customs and technicalities of their profession into the management of public affairs. The jury extends this habitude to all classes. The language of the law thus becomes, in some measure, a vulgar tongue; the spirit of the law, which is produced in the schools and courts of justice, gradually penetrates beyond their walls into the bosom of society, where it descends to the lowest classes, so that at last the whole people contract the habits and the tastes of the judicial magistrate.” ? Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

  4. Attorney? Really? Or is it former attorney? Status with the Ind St Ct? Status with federal court, with SCOTUS? This is a legal newspaper, or should I look elsewhere?

  5. Once again Indiana has not only shown what little respect it has for animals, but how little respect it has for the welfare of the citizens of the state. Dumping manure in a pond will most certainly pollute the environment and ground water. Who thought of this spiffy plan? No doubt the livestock industry. So all the citizens of Indiana have to suffer pollution for the gain of a few livestock producers who are only concerned about their own profits at the expense of everyone else who lives in this State. Shame on the Environmental Rules Board!

ADVERTISEMENT