ILNews

Judge dissents on qualified immunity issue

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Judges on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed as to whether law enforcement officers were entitled to qualified immunity for their use of flash-bang devices in attempting to remove a suicidal man from his home.

In the Estate of Rudy Escobedo (deceased) v. Martin Bender, et al., No. 08-2365, dissenting Judge Daniel Manion didn't think the defendants' use of flash-bang devices obviously violated Rudy Escobedo's constitutional rights. Escobedo called 9-1-1 saying he was high and suicidal, and that he had a gun, but he never threatened to hurt anyone but himself. Law enforcement officers, the crisis response team, and emergency response team went to his apartment. Protocol in dealing with this type of situation wasn't followed and after several hours, the response teams fired in excessive amounts of tear gas to try to force Escobedo out of his apartment. When that didn't work, they forced their way in and threw one flash-bang grenade device into the apartment. They then threw a flash-bang device into a bedroom where Escobedo was. It exploded so close to his head that it may have rendered Escobedo blind and deaf when he was shot by police when they entered the room. He died from the shooting.

Escobedo's estate filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against many of the law enforcement officers involved. The District Court denied some of the defendants' motion for summary judgment with respect to their use of the tear gas and flash-bang grenade devices. The District Court held those officers weren't entitled to qualified immunity.

Judge Michael Kanne, and Judge Virginia M. Kendall - District judge for the Northern District of Illinois who was sitting by designation - affirmed the lower court's ruling. They determined that on the date of the incident, the defendants were properly on notice that the use of tear gas and flash-bang devices in a closely analogous context was deemed unreasonable. The state of the law at the time of the incident gave the defendants fair warning that their treatment of Escobedo was unconstitutional, wrote Judge Kendall.

"Based on the facts as presented to us in the record and taking them in the light most favorable to the Estate, we find that Defendants' actions in deploying an excess amount of tear gas to extricate Escobedo, a non-threatening, non-violent, non-resisting individual, from his apartment violated a clearly established right and therefore the Defendants are not protected by qualified immunity," she wrote.

The majority also relied on previous caselaw to find the officers used unreasonable force with their use of the flash-bang devices.

Judge Manion concurred with the majority's conclusion regarding the use of the tear gas - that it wasn't protected by qualified immunity. However, he believed the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the use of the flash-bang devices. He didn't think the cases cited by the majority separately or collectively clearly established that the defendants' conduct was unconstitutional.

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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT