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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  3. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  4. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  5. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

ADVERTISEMENT