Opinion
No. 02 C 742
December 15, 2003
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Cathy Ridley brought this action on behalf of Kenneth L. Taylor, alleging false arrest and excessive use of force by defendants, Bartlett, Illinois, police officers. Defendants filed motions seeking summary judgment as to all counts. For the following reasons, defendant John Manfredi's motion is granted in part and denied In part and defendant Ronald Graziano's motion is denied.
BACKGROUND
In the early evening of June 17, 2000, Kenneth Taylor was standing with a group of friends in front of a house in Bartlett Defendant Graziano had been called to the scene because of a report of "suspicious behavior" hi the area. When he approached Taylor and his friends, Taylor, along with at least two others, left and began heading towards his house. Plaintiff alleges that Taylor simply turned away and began walking, while defendant Graziano claims that Taylor ran from the scene. Graziano began to follow Taylor in his squad car and put out a call on his radio describing the individuals who had left the scene. Defendant Manfredi heard the call, saw Taylor and noticed that he matched the description given by Graziano. He radioed back to Graziano and followed Taylor, in his car, until Graziano arrived. Upon arriving at the scene, Graziano began to question Taylor, eventually placing him under arrest Plaintiff alleges that Graziano initiated a struggle with Taylor, using excessive force, first twisting his arm behind his back then causing Taylor to hit his face against the squad car, knocking out his teeth. Defendants maintain that Taylor was acting suspiciously, refusing to remove his hand from his pocket, and that any injuries were the result of his struggle to resist arrest All charges against Taylor were dropped.
DISCUSSION
Our function in ruling on a motion for summary judgment is merely to determine if there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial.Anderson v. Liberty Lobby. Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986). Only if the evidence on file shows that no such issue exists and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law will we grant the motion. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986);Bennett v. Roberts, 295 F.3d 687, 694 (7th Cir. 2002). In ruling on this motion it is not our job to determine whether the plaintiffs story or the defendants' story is more likely to be true. Instead, we decide only whether a reasonable jury could believe the story as told by the plaintiff and, if so, whether he would be entitled to recovery.
False Arrest
In order to prevail on a claim for false arrest, plaintiff must prove that defendants arrested Taylor in the absence of probable cause.Olian v. Kautz, 168 F.3d 949, 953 (7th Cir. 1999). The existence of such probable cause Is an absolute bar to recovery. Smith v. City of Chicago, 913 F.2d 469, 473 (7th Cir. 1990). This determination is made at the time of the arrest, Olan, 168 F.3d at 953. If at that time a reasonably prudent person could believe that the suspect had committed or was committing an offense, the officer had probable cause. Id. While the officers are entitled to qualified Immunity, in a § 1983 case involving a false arrest claim, the concepts merge and the sole question is whether there was probable cause for the arrestBoyce v. Fernandes, 77 F.3d 946, 948 (7th Cir. 1996).
Obviously, plaintiff bears a heavy burden in proving a false arrest However, a reasonable jury could believe plaintiffs story and find that probable cause did not exist Essentially, Taylor claims that he was simply standing near a friend's house, followed by Graziano when he began to head towards home, and was subsequently arrested. While Graziano had received a call reporting "suspicious behavior," there is no evidence that he had information about any specific criminal activity. If the jury believes Taylor, it may reasonably determine that the arrest lacked probable cause.
Manfredi's motion for summary judgment on this claim is granted. He heard the report over the police radio and noticed that Taylor matched Graziano's description. A reasonable officer in his position could act on this information, believing there to be probable cause. Moreover, Manfredi played only a minor role in actually arresting Taylor, watching him until the arrival of Graziano. This does not amount to a violation of Taylor's § 1983 rights.
Excessive Use of Force
The right to make an arrest inherently carries with it the right to use a reasonable amount of force. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194.208 (2001). The court must look at the totality of the circumstances, judging the use of force from the perspective of a reasonable officer at the scene, rather than trying to determine what should have happened. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989); Jones by Jones v. Webb, 45 F.3d 178, 183 (7th Cir. 1995).
Again, plaintiffs burden is high, but a reasonable jury could find that Officer Graziano used excessive force when arresting Taylor. If the jury believes Taylor's story, he was unarmed, did not struggle, yet he was wrestled against the car by Graziano, who twisted his arm behind his back and caused his head to bit the rear window of the car. A jury may determine that this was excessive, given the circumstances.
Also, plaintiff alleges that Officer Manfredi watched the struggle, should have realized that Graziano was using excessive force, yet failed to say or do anything to stop him. If a jury believes plaintiffs version of events, they may determine that Manfredi had both the motivation and the opportunity to intervene, yet failed to do so, which is enough to find him liable for Taylor's injuries as well. See Yang v. Hardin, 37 F.3d 282, 285 (7th Cir. 1994); Rascon v. Hardiman, 803 F.2d 269, 276-77 (7th Cir. 1986).
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, defendant Manfredi's summary judgment motion is granted as to Count I and denied as to Count II; defendant Graziano's motion is denied.