McDowell v. Rogers

Incident Summary & Facts

Around 5:00 p.m. on May 6, 1981, John McDowell tried to cash a stolen check at a Memphis grocery store, got into a shoving match with the store’s security guard, pushed the guard to the floor, and ran. Officer Ronald Rogers, off duty but in uniform and armed, chased him over a wooden fence and into an apartment courtyard, where McDowell hid behind a Coke machine. Rogers reached around the machine, grabbed him, told him at gunpoint that he was under arrest, then holstered his pistol and handcuffed McDowell’s hands behind his back. The security guard then came up and, by McDowell’s account, began hitting him. McDowell did not claim that Rogers struck him.

Back at the store, Officer Don Ross, who had been on the force for one month, swapped Rogers’s handcuffs for his own while McDowell bent over the trunk of a squad car. Everyone agreed McDowell was handcuffed, “completely docile,” and not trying to escape or hurt anyone. McDowell testified that after the new cuffs were on, Ross hit him twice with a nightstick, once above the knee and once in the side, and that a hospital x-ray a day or two later showed a cracked rib. Ross testified that he had not even been issued a nightstick and never struck McDowell, and Rogers corroborated him. McDowell also alleged racial slurs, threats, and a denial of medical care, all of which the officers denied. The hospital could find no records or x-rays. McDowell’s sister testified that his face was bruised and scratched.

McDowell represented himself at a jury trial on his § 1983 claim. After both sides rested, the district court weighed the evidence, discounted the plaintiff’s and his sister’s testimony, found “no proof of damages,” and directed a verdict for all three officers. McDowell appealed.

Core Legal Issue

Whether a handcuffed, non-resisting arrestee’s evidence that an officer gratuitously struck him with a nightstick, breaking a rib, was enough to reach a jury on a Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim, and whether the trial judge could direct a verdict by making credibility determinations.

The Holding

Taking the evidence in the light most favorable to McDowell, a jury could find that Officer Ross’s alleged nightstick blows were an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment, so the directed verdict for Ross was reversed and that claim was remanded. The judgment for Officers Rogers and Martin was affirmed because their conduct did not deprive McDowell of any constitutional right.

The Court’s Analysis:

• Fourth Amendment governs. The court noted the post-Tennessee v. Garner debate over whether excessive force in an arrest should be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment or Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process. Where intentional excessive force is alleged in making an arrest, it found “no need to look beyond the Fourth Amendment.” A seizure carried out by unreasonable means is itself unreasonable, and the arrest seizure “continues throughout the time the person remains in the custody of the arresting officers.”
• Reasonableness factors. The court adopted Judge Friendly’s test from Johnson v. Glick: the need for force, the relationship between the need and the amount of force used, the extent of injury, and whether force was applied in good faith or “maliciously and sadistically.” “Not every push or shove” is unconstitutional.
• No need for force against a restrained suspect. Because McDowell was handcuffed and not resisting, the “need for the application of force” was “nonexistent.” Any blow could only have been applied “maliciously,” and “there is nothing trivial about a broken rib caused by a completely unprovoked and unnecessary blow from a policeman’s nightstick.” A “serious or permanent injury” is not a prerequisite to a § 1983 claim.
• Other force. The court held that the remaining incidents were either too trivial to cross the constitutional line or were justified by “the exigencies of hot pursuit” and the need to get a suspected felon to booking.
• Procedure. On a directed-verdict motion a judge may not weigh evidence, judge credibility, or believe one witness over another. The judge’s remedy for a verdict against the manifest weight of the evidence is a new trial under Rule 59, not taking the case from the jury.