Should Technology Be Trusted? the Detrimental Role of Video Footage in a Qualified Immunity Analysis
| Publication year | 2021 |
Should Technology be Trusted? The Detrimental Role of Video Footage in a Qualified Immunity Analysis
Shreya H. Shah
[Page 977]
Mr. Sureshbhai Patel, an Indian grandfather, experienced a traumatic encounter with law enforcement while walking peacefully in his neighborhood.1 During the encounter, the officer used excessive force and rendered Patel forever partially paralyzed.2 Confident in the fact that two dashboard cameras equipped with audio and video capabilities captured the incident, Patel introduced the footage to the court. Despite overcoming qualified immunity on summary judgment, Patel's hopes that the footage would provide clear and accurate imaging of the incident quickly faded away. Whether using a body camera, dashboard camera, bystander cell phone, or an affixed video surveillance camera, these devices are intended to provide safety and protection, but they are falling short of their call. Rather than clarifying these incidents, cameras, especially those of subpar quality, are proving to be a hindrance in qualified immunity cases.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has addressed qualified immunity countless times, but the increased use of camera footage has made overcoming a qualified immunity defense a greater challenge. With video footage highlighting minute-by-minute detail, finding a factually similar case, a critical step in a qualified
[Page 978]
immunity analysis, becomes more like a needle in a haystack, should the needle even exist. Similarly, evaluating whether an officer's actions clearly and obviously violated a constitutionally protected right is increasingly difficult when the blurred actions of the figure in the video footage is far from indicative. The notion that cameras will help offer protection to those relying on them is quickly fading and its application in legal analysis is suboptimal as applied to a qualified immunity analysis.
Mr. Sureshbhai Patel, a fifty-seven-year-old Indian national, had recently retired as a farmer in his native home, Gujarat, India. Despite knowing little to no English, Patel relocated overseas to reside with his son in Madison, Alabama. Patel had been living in the United States for only one week when one encounter with the police altered his life forever.3
Upon arriving in the United States, Patel frequently walked in his neighborhood. On the morning of February 6, 2015, Patel left the house wearing a light-colored sweater, jeans, and a toboggan hat and commenced his usual neighborhood stroll. One neighbor, who was unfamiliar with the new Indian resident, called the Police Department and reported that a "black man" in his thirties" [was] walking . . . close to the garage," and urged the dispatcher to send "somebody to talk to the unidentified man." Officer Parker responded to the "check subject call" along with his partner Officer Slaughter, who was still undergoing training.4
When the officers arrived at the scene, they spotted Patel walking on the sidewalk but simultaneously noticed Patel was neither black nor in his thirties. The officers parked the police cruiser behind Patel and turned on the dashboard camera which was equipped with both audio and video capabilities. Parker and Slaughter exited the vehicle and immediately called after Patel, asking him to "come here" and inquired "what's going on?" Patel walked towards the officers and said, "India . . . no English . . . my house, my house, 148, walking, India," while simultaneously pointing in the direction he was heading. Slaughter responded, "I can't understand you . . . where is your address . . . where do you live . . . stop walking. Stop walking."5
[Page 979]
The officers believed that Patel kept suspiciously reaching into his pockets during the encounter. As a result, they took hold of Patel's hands and forced them together behind his back. Patel testified that he did not move while Parker had his hands restrained and that Parker frisked both of Patel's pockets. In contrast, Parker testified that Patel pulled his left-hand free four times during the pocket search, rendering Parker unable to complete frisking one of the pockets. Parker claimed that Patel "stepped forward, turned his head toward the officers, and moved his shoulder . . . ." In response, Parker barked loudly, "[d]o not jerk away from me again. If you do, I am going to put you on the ground . . . do you understand what I am saying to you?"6
Parker immediately attempted to pat down Patel's left pant pocket again. As Parker began, Patel allegedly took a step forward and turned his head. Parker reacted by using his leg to sweep Patel's left leg out from under him. Patel's leg flew back behind him with such force, it caused his shoe to fly off. Parker continued to hold Patel's hands behind Patel's back as he performed the takedown maneuver. Patel hit the ground without the use of his hands to arrest his fall and struck the ground with his face and left shoulder. Parker admitted he did not know how to properly perform a leg sweep.7
Officer Spence, another Madison County Officer, had responded to the scene at some point during the altercation. Spence parked his car and activated his dashboard camera before the takedown had occurred. This second dashboard camera captured a video of the incident from an opposing angle to that of the responding officers' dashboard camera. Spence testified that Patel, "appeared to be in his 70s." He also testified that he witnessed Parker, the responding officer, get on his hands and knees on top of Patel, after the takedown, and yell, "stop trying to jerk away from me." However, Patel was unresponsive. One of the officers then said to Spence, "he don't speak a lick of English." Spence testified that when he arrived on the scene before the takedown, he did not witness anything that would have caused him to "lay hands on . . . Patel."8
Patel was hospitalized as a result of the violent takedown, and he was rendered permanently partially paralyzed. Patel filed a civil lawsuit against Parker and the City of Madison under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for "illegal seizure, unlawful search, and excessive force in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
[Page 980]
Constitution."9 Patel argued that the footage from both dashboard cameras showed that he did not resist before Parker conducted the takedown maneuver.10 Patel filed for summary judgment. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama denied Patel's motion.11
Parker argued that he was entitled to qualified immunity from all of Patel's claims because he was acting within the scope of his duty. The district court denied Parker qualified immunity on Patel's excessive force claims under the Fourth Amendment because several disputed issues of fact remained. Parker filed an appeal on the district court's denial of summary judgment. On appeal, The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit applied a de novo standard of review, affording no deference to the lower court's decision. The Court ruled that the dashboard video camera recordings were inconclusive and that they were unable to resolve the factual discrepancies between the parties.12 The Court affirmed the district court's denial of summary judgment to Parker.13
A. What is Qualified Immunity?
Qualified immunity is a legal defense that shields public officers and government officials from liability for civil damages for violations committed during the course and scope of their official role.14 The protection offered to these officials is limited "insofar as their conduct does not violate [a] clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known."15 The purpose of this legal defense is to shield officials from "harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably."16 As a result, courts consider whether the official's actions, at the time of the violation, were taken either pursuant to the performance of their duties,
[Page 981]
or within the scope of their authority.17 In the case of police officers, the law recognizes that an officer's job may sometimes be dangerous and must often depend on snap judgements which can result in the difference between life and death.18 As a result, the qualified immunity defense allows them to work without the fear of liability, while still holding accountable those who plainly or knowingly violate the law.19
In order to overcome an official's qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff must show (1) the official's conduct violated a constitutionally protected right, and (2) that right had been clearly established at the time of the misconduct such that the official had fair notice that their actions violated another's rights.20 Before an official loses the protections of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must satisfy both prongs of the test.21
B. Overcoming Qualified Immunity: The Two Prong Analysis
1. The Official's Conduct Violated a Constitutionally Protected Right
Graham v. Connor,22 states that an analysis of the first prong begins by identifying "the specific constitutional right allegedly infringed."23 A typical qualified immunity analysis may consider rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.24 The Fourteenth Amendment guards against the use of excessive force against arrestees and pretrial detainees.25 The Fourth Amendment governs, "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures."26 In considering only the Fourth
[Page 982]
Amendment, the alleged violation is evaluated using a "reasonable standard test."27
a. The Fourth Amendment Reasonable Standard Test
A reasonable standard test weighs the defendant's right to be free from excessive force against...
To continue reading
Request your trial