New York Personal Injury Lawyer Blog 24/7
A person who has been arrested and is awaiting trial has not been convicted of a crime. As a result, the Constitution provides protections against the use of excessive force by correctional officers and other government officials. For many years, courts disagreed about what a pretrial detainee had to prove to succeed on an excessive force claim. In Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389 (2015), the United States Supreme Court resolved that question. The Court held that a pretrial detainee need only prove that the force used against him was objectively unreasonable. The detainee does not have to prove that the officer subjectively intended to violate his constitutional rights. The decision significantly changed civil rights litigation involving pretrial detainees and later influenced other important constitutional cases involving jail conditions.
Background Facts
Michael Kingsley was a pretrial detainee being held in a Wisconsin county jail. One day, correctional officers ordered him to remove a piece of paper that had been covering a light fixture in his cell. Kingsley refused.
Officers entered the cell and forcibly removed him. During the encounter, the officers placed Kingsley in handcuffs and moved him to a different cell. According to Kingsley, he was compliant after being restrained. Nevertheless, officers allegedly forced his head into a concrete bunk and used a Taser on him.
Kingsley filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983, claiming that the officers used excessive force in violation of his constitutional rights. At trial, the district court instructed the jury that Kingsley had to prove not only that the force was unreasonable, but also that the officers acted with a subjective state of mind showing they knowingly used unreasonable force.
The jury returned a verdict for the officers. Kingsley appealed, arguing that the instruction imposed the wrong legal standard.
Issue
When a pretrial detainee claims that correctional officers used excessive force, must the detainee prove that the officers knowingly used excessive force, or only that the force used was unreasonable?
Holding
The Supreme Court held that a pretrial detainee bringing an excessive force claim under the Fourteenth Amendment need only show that the force used against him was objectively unreasonable. The detainee is not required to prove that the officer subjectively knew the force was excessive or intended to violate the detainee’s rights.
Discussion
The Court began by recognizing the distinction between convicted prisoners and pretrial detainees. Convicted prisoners are protected by the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Under Eighth Amendment law, a prisoner generally must prove both that the force was objectively serious and that the official acted with a sufficiently culpable state of mind. On the other hand, pretrial detainees stand on different constitutional footing. Because they have not been convicted of a crime, they are protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment rather than the Eighth Amendment. The Due Process Clause prohibits punishment of pretrial detainees.
The Supreme Court reasoned that requiring a detainee to prove an officer’s subjective intent would improperly blur the distinction between the Eighth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead, the proper question is whether the force used was objectively unreasonable from the perspective of a reasonable officer at the scene.
The Court emphasized that this standard still gives appropriate deference to correctional officers who must make difficult decisions in rapidly developing situations. Courts must consider the facts and circumstances confronting the officer, including legitimate concerns about jail security, maintaining order, and protecting staff and detainees.
The Court identified several factors that may be relevant when determining whether force was objectively unreasonable, including:
- The relationship between the need for force and the amount of force used.
- The extent of the plaintiff’s injuries.
- Efforts made by officers to limit or reduce the amount of force used.
- The severity of any security problem.
- The threat reasonably perceived by the officer.
- Whether the detainee was actively resisting.
Applying those principles, the Supreme Court concluded that the district court’s jury instructions were incorrect because they required Kingsley to prove more than the Constitution demands. The Court therefore reversed the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.
The decision had consequences beyond excessive force cases. Courts later relied on Kingsley when evaluating other claims brought by pretrial detainees, including claims involving medical care and unconstitutional conditions of confinement. In the Second Circuit, for example, Kingsley played a major role in the court’s decision in Darnell v. Pineiro, 849 F.3d 17 (2d Cir. 2017), which adopted a more objective standard for certain deliberate indifference claims brought by pretrial detainees.
Conclusion
In Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389 (2015), the Supreme Court clarified the standard governing excessive force claims brought by pretrial detainees. The Court held that detainees need only prove that the force used against them was objectively unreasonable under the circumstances. The decision strengthened constitutional protections for individuals who have been arrested but not convicted and remains one of the most important civil rights decisions involving the treatment of detainees in custody.
If you believe that law enforcement officers, correctional officers, or other government officials used excessive force or otherwise violated your constitutional rights while you were in custody, contact an experienced New York civil rights lawyer at Stephen Bilkis & Associates to discuss your legal rights and potential remedies.