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.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?