The officers rolled Gilbert onto his back and found no pulse; they performed chest compressions and rescue breathing. NACDL is committed to enhancing the capacity of the criminal defense bar to safeguard fundamental constitutional rights. Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650, 655656 (2014) (per curiam). Supreme Court TOP Per Curiam SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES JODY LOMBARDO, et al. Jack is a former adjunct faculty member at Salve Regina University and lectures frequently throughout the United States. The guidance further indicates that the struggles of a prone suspect may be due to oxygen deficiency, rather than a desire to disobey officers commands. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the cited cases and legislation of a document. WebOn 11/30/2022 Jody Lombardo, , Petitioners filed an Other court case against City of St Louis, Missouri, in U.S. Supreme Court. Responding officers struggled with Gilbert but eventually brought him to the ground and placed him in handcuffs and leg shackles. WebThe Supreme Court of the United States handed down fourteen per curiam opinions during its 2020 term, which began October 5, 2020 and concluded October 3, 2021. While in a holding cell, Gilbert attempted to hang himself. 44 F.4th 1085 - MCDANIEL v. NEAL, United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. Brief of respondents City of St. Louis, et al. Stop. Lombardo v. Saint Louis City, 361 F. Supp. Receipt of this communication does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Three officers responded and entered Gilbert's cell. After 15 minutes This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. Petitioners brought their excessive force claims under both the Fourth and Supreme Court Decides Lombardo v WebView 20-391_2c83.pdf from LAW 4041 at Cornell University. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES For the court's prior opinion, see Lombardo v. City of St. Louis, 956 F.3d 1009 (8th Cir. Lombardo v. City of St. Louis, No. 19-1469 (8th Cir. 2020) (Detached Opinion) Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas and Justice Gorsuch join, dissenting. Brief amici curiae of Restore the Fourth, Inc., et al. Gilberts parents sued, alleging that the officers had used excessive force against him. While in a holding cell, Gilbert apparently tried to hang himself. Jack has 20 years police experience as a police officer with the Providence Police Department, Providence, RI. The Court then cited several factors that could be important in the determination of whether an excessive force claim should go forward, including: After citing these three items of evidence, the Court wrote: Such evidence, when considered alongside the duration of the restraint and the fact that Gilbert was handcuffed and leg shackled at the time, may be pertinent to the relation- ship between the need for the use of force and the amount of force used, the security problem at issue, and the threatto both Gilbert and othersreasonably perceived by the officers. Supreme Court of the United States Web71 decision for City of St. Louisplurality opinion by Sandra Day O'Connor. (emphasis added). 3 While the dissent suggests we should give the Eighth Circuit the benefit of the doubt, in assessing the appropriateness of review in this factbound context, it is more prudent to afford the Eighth Circuit an opportunity to clarify its opinion rather than to speculate as to its basis. Here, for example, record evidence (viewed in the light most favorable to Gilbert's parents) shows that officers placed pressure on Gilbert's back even though St. Louis instructs its officers that pressing down on the back of a prone subject can cause suffocation. After Gilbert kicked one of the officers in the groin, they called for more help and leg shackles. Brief of respondents City of St. Louis, et al. WebParties, docket activity and news coverage of federal case Jody Lombardo, et al., Petitioners v. City of St. Louis, Missouri, et al., case number 20-391, from Supreme Court Court. Get free summaries of new US Supreme Court opinions delivered to your inbox! Interactive police training, programs, and courses you can easily access anywhere. Among the most important is the observation that [the detainee] was actively resisting the extraction procedure by ignoring directives to lie down on his bunk and resisting the defendants efforts to subdue him once they entered his cell. Ibid. Emergency medical services personnel were phoned for assistance. Docket Number: No. United States Court of Appeals The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the officers, concluding that they were entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the incident. Lombardo v. City of St. Louis, 141 S. Ct. 2239 (2021). At least one other placed pressure on Gilberts back and torso. Such guidance further indicates that the suspect may be struggling due to oxygen deficiency, rather than disobedience. 1660 L St. NW, 12th Floor , Washington, DC 20036 The Ryan court explained: Several factors support the foregoing conclusion. Supreme Court Decides Lombardo v. St. Louis | Publications Premium subscribers receive a new training module each month on the most essential topics for Law Enforcement Supervisors. Gilbert kicked the officers and hit his head on the bench. necessary to a conclusion that a use of force was constitutionally excessive. 20391 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States JODY LOMBARDO, ET AL., Petitioners, v. CITY OF ST.LOUIS, ET AL., Respondents. Gilbert tried to raise his chest, saying, It hurts. Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas and Justice Gorsuch join, dissenting. Lombardo v. City of Saint Louis - Amicus Brief, Support our on-going litigation and work in the courts, Lombardo v. City of Saint Louis, 20391. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the officers, concluding that they were entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the incident. Lombardo 47 F.4th 1172 - RICHMOND v. Mouthy Detainees and Excessive Force: Johnson v. City of Miami Beach, When Tactical Operations & Mental Health Crises Collide, Just Added: Training Built for Supervisors & Command. JODY LOMBARDO, ET AL. v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, ET AL. Record received from the U.S.D.C. I do not think that this Court is above occasionally digging into the type of fact-bound questions that make up much of the work of the lower courts, and a decision by this Court on the question presented here could be instructive. Gilberts parents sued, alleging that the officers had used excessive force against him. Gilbert reared back, kicking the officers and hitting his head on the bench. Subscribers are able to see any amendments made to the case. Instead, they wrote, they were simply giving the 8th Circuit the opportunity to employ an inquiry that clearly attends to the facts and circumstances in answering those questions in the first instance., Alito dissented, in an opinion that was joined by Thomas and Gorsuch. entering your email. Instead, it claims to be uncertain whether the Court of Appeals actually applied the correct legal standard, and for that reason it vacates the judgment below and remands the case. After Gilbert kicked one of the officers in the groin, they called for more help and leg shackles. In some jurisdictions, this communication may be considered attorney advertising. The officers rolled Gilbert onto his side and then his back to check for a pulse. 1415. In an excessive force case, brought by the estate of a detainee who died while being restrained in a prone position, the Supreme Court rejects a "per se" approach based on the detainee's ongoing resistance. Document Cited J. Brent Dulle, Myles Durkin McDonnell, St. Louis City Counselor's Office, H. Anthony Relys, Attorney General Of Missouri, St. Louis, MO, for Defendants. The Court expresses no view as to whether the officers used unconstitutionally excessive force or, if they did, whether Gilbert's right to be free of such force in these circumstances was clearly established at the time of his death. Request a trial to view additional results, Tserkis v. Baltimore County, Civil Action ELH-19-202, Stalley v. Cumbie, Case No. The Court made clear that they had no view as to whether the officers used unconstitutional excessive force or, even if they did, whether Gilberts rights to be free from the force used in this case was clearly established at the time. The officers moved Gilbert to a prone position, face down on the floor. The lawsuit arose from the 2015 death of Nicholas Gilbert, a homeless man who was arrested for trespassing and for failing to appear in court for a traffic ticket. Lombardo also argues that she presented expert testimony that Gilberts cause of death was forcible restraint inducing asphyxia whereas the undisputed cause of death in Ryan was sudden unexpected death during restraint. When the Court of Appeals opinion is read in the way we hope our opinions will be interpreted, it is clear that the Court of Appeals understood and applied the correct standard for excessive-force claims. 846 F.3d 1002 - EHLERS v. CITY OF RAPID CITY, United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. Gilbert tried to raise his chest and said, It hurts. Case Details. Three officers responded and entered Gilberts cell. Lombardo v. City of St. Louis United States Supreme Court; Case No. After Gilbert kicked one of the officers in the groin, they called for more help and leg shackles. Record received from the U.S.C.A. In Lombardo v. St. Louis,[i] the United States Supreme Court considered decisions by a Federal District Court as well as the United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit and overturned the lower courts decisions to dismiss the lawsuit. On the afternoon of December 8, 2015, St. Louis police officers arrested Nicholas Gilbert for trespassing in a condemned building and failing to appear in court for a traffic ticket.1 Officers brought him to the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department's central station and placed him in a holding cell. The Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP website uses cookies to make your browsing experience as useful as possible. The guidance further indicates that the struggles of a prone suspect may be due to oxygen deficiency, rather than a desire to disobey officers commands. Get free summaries of new Eighth Circuit US Court of Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox! Gilberts parents filed suit, alleging the officers used excessive force against him. Although the Eighth Circuit cited the Kingsley factors, it is unclear whether the court thought the use of a prone restraintno matter the kind, intensity, duration, or surrounding circumstancesis per se constitutional so long as an individual appears to resist officers efforts to subdue him. . The Court then outlined circumstances that must be considered, It should be noted that because this particular event occurred in a holding cell, the circumstances for determining objective reasonableness outlined above, are the circumstances considered when the subject is in a custodial setting such as a jail or holding cell but who is not a sentenced prisoner.[iii]. See St. Louis Baptist Temple, Inc. v. FDIC, 605 F.2d 1169, 1171-72 (10th Cir. Gilbert tried to raise his chest, saying, It hurts. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Jacks law degree and experience as a police officer gives him the unique perspective of the legal and liability issues. Mo. At least one other placed pressure on Gilberts back and torso. Here, for example, record evidence (viewed in the light most favorable to Gilbert's parents) shows that officers placed pressure on Gilbert's back even though St. Louis instructs its officers that pressing down on the back of a prone subject can cause suffocation. We instead grant the petition for certiorari, vacate the judgment of the Eighth Circuit, and remand the case to give the court the opportunity to employ an inquiry that clearly attends to the facts and circumstances in answering those questions in the first instance. The use-of-force standards at issue in this case affect a staggering number of Americans each year. That is the course I would take. district court granted the Officers and Citys motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. Can the Court seriously think that the Eighth Circuit adopted such a strange and extreme positionthat the use of prone restraint on a resisting detainee is always reasonable no matter how much force is used, no matter how long that force is employed, no matter the physical condition of the detainee, and no matter whether the detainee is obviously suffering serious or even life-threatening harm? The officers rolled Gilbert onto his side and then his back to check for a pulse. As discussed above, the undisputed facts show that Gilbert continued to violently struggle even after being handcuffed and leg-shackled. At some point, an officer saw Gilbert tie a piece of clothing around the bars of his cell and put it around his neck, in an apparent attempt to hang himself. Because the 8th Circuit either failed to analyze such evidence or characterized it as insignificant, SCOTUS concluded, it had not conducted the kind of careful, context-specific analysis required by this Courts excessive force precedent. The justices stressed that they were not weighing in on whether the officers had in fact used excessive force or whether, if they did, the officers would ultimately be entitled to qualified immunity. The evidentiary record also includes well-known police guidance recommending that officers get a subject off his stomach as soon as he is handcuffed because of that risk. Having either failed to analyze such evidence or characterized it as insignificant, the courts opinion could be read to treat Gilbert resistance as controlling as a matter of law. Three officers held Gilbert's limbs down at the shoulders, biceps, and legs. One grabbed Gilberts wrist to handcuff him, but Gilbert evaded the officer and began to struggle. An ambulance eventually transported Gilbert to the hospital, where he was pronounced dead. 4:07CV931 SNLJ, 2009 WL 1650093, at *2 (E.D. We have two respectable options: deny review of the fact-bound question that the case presents or grant the petition, have the case briefed and argued, roll up our sleeves, and decide the real issue. They kept doing so even as he attempted to lift his body up for air and said: It hurts. apply unconstitutionally excessive force against Gilbert. Accordingly, the Court remanded to the Eighth Circuit to employ an inquiry that sufficiently attends to the facts and circumstances of the case consistent with excessive force precedent. Is there any support for that interpretation in the Court of Appeals opinion? 2019). Jody Lombardo v. City of St. Louis, No. Copyright 2022 Legal & Liability Risk Management Institute, UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT ISSUES [PER CURIAM] DECISION IN PRONE RESTRAINT LAWSUIT RESISTANCE ALONE MAY NOT JUSTIFY PRONE RESTRAINT, MEDICAL MARIJUANA OFFICER TERMINATION UPHELD BY FLORIDA COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH CIRCUIT DISCUSSES MALICIOUS PROSECUTION, FALSE ARREST, RETALIATORY ARREST AND PROBABLE CAUSE, ELEVENTH CIRCUIT CONSIDERS FAILURE TO INTERVENE AND UNLAWFUL FRISK SUIT AGAINST BACK-UP OFFICER ON TRAFFIC STOP, SEVENTH CIRCUIT DISCUSSES SCOPE OF A TRAFFIC STOP AND CONSENT TO SEARCH, SIXTH CIRCUIT UPHOLDS WARRANTLESS ENTRY INTO VEHICLE UNDER COMMUNITY CARETAKER EXCEPTION. ", "requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case. See 956 F.3d at 10131015. Lombardo 1,200+ attorneys and consulting professionals, Located across the U.S., and in London and Shanghai, California Business Contact Privacy Policy. At least one other placed pressure on Gilbert's back and torso. Three officers held Gilberts limbs down at the shoulders, biceps, and legs. Gilbert reared back, kicking the officers and hitting his head on the bench. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google. The court cited Circuit precedent for the proposition that "the use of prone restraint is not objectively unreasonable when a detainee actively resists officer directives and efforts to subdue the detainee." This website may use cookies to improve your experience. One grabbed Gilbert's wrist to handcuff him, but Gilbert evaded the officer and began to struggle. On the other hand, the officers use of force inflicted serious injuries, and the medical evidence on the cause of death was conflicting. Lombardo v. City of St. Louis | No. 19-1469 - CaseMine The Court said that these details could be important when deciding to grant summary judgment in favor of the officers on an excessive force claim. The Court noted that in assessing excessive force claims, courts must ask whether the officers actions are objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them. Lombardo Lombardo v The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the officers, concluding that they were entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the incident. Whether a reasonable jury could find that police officers violate the Constitutions prohibition on excessive force when they kill a shackled and handcuffed arrestee inside of a jail cell by holding him face-down on the ground and pressing into his back until he suffocated, also known as compression asphyxiation. See 956 F.3d, at 10111014. filed. Emergency medical services personnel were phoned for assistance. City of St This gap in accountability will have the effect of delegating to individual officers in the Eighth Circuit the discretion to apply deadly force even where it is unnecessary and wholly disproportionate. Brief amici curiae of Policing Scholars filed. If legal or other professional advice is required, the services of a professional should be sought. 2018), cert. The U. S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed on different grounds, holding that the officers did not. Ryan held only that the use of force in that case was reasonable based on the totality of th[e] circumstances, including the detainees resistance. 2022) Annotate this Case Justia Opinion Summary Three officers held Gilberts limbs down at the shoulders, biceps, and legs. ", The court cited Circuit precedent for the proposition that, "the use of prone restraint is not objectively unreasonable when a detainee actively resists officer directives and efforts to subdue the detainee. And the Supreme Court has never answered the question of whether a right may be clearly established without a Supreme Court case specifically recognizing it. United States Supreme Court; Record received from the U.S.D.C. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT ISSUES [PER CURIAM] (Doc. Lombardo v. City of St. Louis, Missouri - SCOTUSblog 3d 882, 898 (ED Mo. This case asks whether a reasonable jury could find that police officers use excessive force when they kill a shackled and handcuffed arrestee inside of a jail cell by compression asphyxiation. 4th Circuit. This communication was published on the date specified and may not include any changes in the topics, laws, rules or regulations covered. Record returned to the U.S.C.A. You also get a useful overview of how the case was received. APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS - Supreme Court of the
