Donald Gravelet-Blondin v. Sgt Jeff Shelton

I. BACKGROUND

In the early evening of May 4, 2008, Sergeant Jeff Shelton and four other officers from the Snohomish, Washington Police Department were dispatched to respond to a 911 call of a suicide in progress made by family members of an elderly suspect, Jack. When the officers arrived at Jack’s home he was sitting in his car, which was parked in the side yard of his house, with a hose running from the exhaust pipe into one of the car’s windows. The officers had been warned that Jack owned a gun and would have it with him. Sgt. Shelton took precautions to ensure officer safety and then asked Jack to get out of the car.

After several requests Jack finally complied, turning his car off and stepping out with his hands at his sides. When Jack refused multiple commands to show his hands, Sgt. Shelton—concerned that Jack might gain access to a gun—instructed another officer to tase Jack in dart mode.3

whether it was clearly established that a taser in dart mode constitutes non-trivial force. We disagree with the dissent’s concern that we are undertaking this constitutional inquiry at too high a level of generality. 2 We reverse the court’s grant of summary judgment on a number of…

We must decide whether it was clearly established as of 2008 that the use of a taser in dart mode against a passive bystander amounts to unconstitutionally excessive force within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. 1 Because we determine that it was, we reverse the contrary conclusion of the district court and remand. 2

I. BACKGROUND

In the early evening of May 4, 2008, Sergeant Jeff Shelton and four other officers from the Snohomish, Washington Police Department were dispatched to respond to a 911 call of a suicide in progress made by family members of an elderly suspect, Jack. When the officers arrived at Jack’s home he was sitting in his car, which was parked in the side yard of his house, with a hose running from the exhaust pipe into one of the car’s windows. The officers had been warned that Jack owned a gun and would have it with him. Sgt. Shelton took precautions to ensure officer safety and then, asked Jack to get out of the car.

After several requests Jack finally complied, turning his car off and stepping out with his hands at his sides. When Jack refused multiple commands to show his hands, Sgt. Shelton—concerned that Jack might gain access to a…

dissenting:

The majority goes badly astray because it loses sight of the specific context of this case and employs hindsight rather than viewing the scene through the eyes of a reasonable officer. Blondín interjected himself into a rapidly-evolving, highly volatile scene: officers struggling to restrain a combative, armed man in the process of trying to take his own life. At the time Blondín was tased, two loaded firearms were unsecured. Yet, at every turn, the majority attempts to minimize the precariousness of the situation, thinly splicing the facts to assess Blondin’s conduct—and the reasonableness of the officers’ response— in a vacuum. It is one thing to resolve disputed facts and inferences in Blondin’s favor. But the majority goes well beyond this by choosing to ignore undisputed facts which do not favor Blondin’s case. By discounting the danger and abstracting the qualified immunity inquiry, the majority’s approach fails to accord appropriate deference to an officer’s reasonable judgment exercised under exigent circumstances. Because the majority fails to follow the Supreme Court’s dictate to assess the use of force “from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the…