Facts
(If you are new to 1983 actions, click here for help)
Wesley Pigott is the father of K.P. and Mya Pigott. Mr. Pigott and his seventeen-year-old daughter Mya both worked at the Huddle House restaurant in Alexandria, Louisiana. At Huddle House, Mr. Pigott supervised individuals detained at the Rapides Parish Detention Center (RPDC) who participated in a work-release program. On the evening of April 17, 2020, Mr. Pigott and Mya picked up K.P. and two of his friends from fishing, after which Mya asked her father to see where the work-release individuals Mr. Pigott supervised lived. In response, Mr. Pigott drove by the RPDC, briefly entered the parking lot, and then drove off. Mya testified that she saw Deputy Paul Gintz sitting in a chair outside the RPDC as her father drove through the parking lot, although Deputy Gintz contends that he was working inside the facility and was sitting at a desk.
Deputy Gintz, the supervisor on duty that day, testified that two deputies who were inside the fence of the RPDC saw a truck drive slowly through the parking lot and radioed it in. According to Deputy Gintz, those deputies saw one person in the back of the truck. Deputy Gintz testified that he had concerns that the driver of the truck may have introduced contraband into the jail or possibly aided in the escape of a detainee. But Deputy Gintz conceded that neither he nor any other deputy at the RPDC saw the occupants of the truck throw anything from the vehicle or commit any other illegal act. Deputy Gintz did not observe the truck drive near the fences surrounding the RPDC where contraband could have been introduced, and he testified that the truck did not speed or drive erratically through the parking lot.
After receiving the radio call about the truck, Deputy Gintz maintains that he left his desk and walked outside, at which point he observed three persons in the vehicle. Deputy Gintz then proceeded to get into his personal vehicle to pursue the Pigotts’ truck. Deputy Gintz allegedly used his personal vehicle because he did not have time to go back inside to get the keys to a marked unit, even though this admittedly violated department policy and procedure.
Shortly after the Pigotts exited the RPDC parking lot, Mya told her father that someone was following them. Mr. Pigott proceeded back to Highway 28, turned left to travel back to town, and changed lanes a few times to confirm he was being followed. While both vehicles were stopped at a red light, Deputy Gintz observed that the persons in the bed of the truck were three minors. Mr. Pigott eventually decided to pull over to determine why someone was following him, as he did not want to be followed to his house. Before he stopped his truck, Mr. Pigott drove the wrong way down a frontage road to see whether his pursuer would follow.
Deputy Gintz followed, after which Mr. Pigott voluntarily stopped his truck in a nearby parking lot. Deputy Gintz pulled into the same lot, parking his vehicle directly behind Mr. Pigott’s truck. Deputy Gintz had followed the Pigotts for approximately ten minutes, or seven to eight miles.
What happened next is the subject of the Pigotts’ § 1983 suit and is disputed by the parties. No video evidence exists to corroborate or undermine either party’s version of events because Deputy Gintz was not wearing a body-worn camera. The Pigotts contend that, immediately after exiting his personal vehicle, Deputy Gintz pointed his gun at Mr. Pigott, who was standing on the driver side step bar of his truck. According to Mr. Pigott’s and K.P.’s deposition testimonies, Deputy Gintz commanded Mr. Pigott to “get the fuck out of the truck” and to put his hands up, and Mr. Pigott promptly obeyed.
The Pigotts assert that Deputy Gintz then pointed his gun at Mya who was sitting in the front passenger seat, and at the three boys in the bed of the truck, instructing them to put their hands up, which they did. Conversely, Deputy Gintz testified he only drew his firearm after Mr. Pigott, who was leaning into his truck with his back towards Deputy Gintz, failed to comply with several commands to show his hands. Deputy Gintz also denies having ever pointed his gun at the children. Deputy Gintz did, however, testify that neither Mr. Pigott nor the children were doing anything threatening when he approached the Pigotts’ vehicle, and that the children were “just sitting there quiet.” Deputy Gintz also stated that Mr. Pigott stopped his vehicle voluntarily and that he never attempted to flee.
During the encounter, Deputy Gintz never identified himself as law enforcement. Mya testified that she feared that they were being robbed. Mr. Pigott did not see the badge on Deputy Gintz’s person or recognize him as law enforcement until after Deputy Gintz had already drawn his gun and pointed it at Mr. Pigott. The children could not make out how Deputy Gintz was dressed or whether he was wearing a uniform because the headlights of Deputy Gintz’s personal vehicle were shining in their faces. The Pigotts assert that after they complied with Deputy Gintz’s initial commands to put their hands up, Deputy Gintz moved closer and pointed his gun close to Mr. Pigott’s forehead, between his eyes. Mr. Pigott reportedly remained calm and collected throughout the encounter and repeatedly told Deputy Gintz to “stay calm” as well.
Deputy Gintz then instructed Mr. Pigott to turn around to face his vehicle, and Mr. Pigott complied. Deputy Gintz then asked Mr. Pigott a series of questions while allegedly pointing his gun at the back of Mr. Pigott’s head. According to the Pigotts, Deputy Gintz pressed the barrel of the gun against the back of Mr. Pigott’s head. Mya and K.P. both testified that they saw Deputy Gintz’s finger on the trigger. At one point during the encounter, Mr. Pigott allegedly tried to turn to face Deputy Gintz while answering one of his questions, prompting Deputy Gintz to yell out, “if you turn around again, I’m going to blow your fucking head off.” Mr. Pigott testified that he smelled alcohol on Deputy Gintz’s breath because he was so close to him, but Deputy Gintz denies drinking alcohol at work or on the day of the incident. Deputy Gintz also denies ever pointing the gun between Mr. Pigott’s eyes, pressing it against the back of Mr. Pigott’s head, or threatening to shoot Mr. Pigott in the head. Deputy Gintz maintains that although he had his firearm drawn, he had it pointing at the ground in a “low gun ready position” throughout the encounter.
Mr. Pigott’s minor child, K.P., stated that he feared for his own life and the lives of his friends who were with him. The children were crying. K.P. testified that he repeatedly begged Deputy Gintz not to shoot his father. The children heard and saw every action Deputy Gintz took, except for K.P.’s eleven-year-old friend, who cowered in fear in the bed of the truck. Deputy Gintz continued to question Mr. Pigott for a total of about three minutes until a second deputy, Clayton Lacaze, arrived. Deputy Lacaze wore a body camera, and the events that followed his arrival are captured on video. When Deputy Lacaze first stepped out of his vehicle, Mr. Pigott can be seen standing facing his truck with his back towards Deputy Gintz and his hands above his head. Mya is seen in the front passenger seat with her hands raised above her head, and the three boys are seen in the bed of the truck sitting quietly.
K.P. testified that when Deputy Lacaze arrived and stepped out of his car, Deputy Gintz still had his gun to his father’s head. Deputy Lacaze testified he observed Deputy Gintz holding the gun at a low ready position, which he described as having the weapon unholstered and “ready” but “not pointed at anyone” such that it is “just kind of pointed down toward the ground area.” Deputy Gintz agrees with Deputy Lacaze’s depiction.
However, the footage from Deputy Lacaze’s body-worn camera contradicts both K.P.’s and the deputies’ accounts. The video shows Deputy Gintz standing several feet behind Mr. Pigott with his left hand outstretched towards Mr. Pigott’s back and his right hand holding his firearm, which was raised up to his chest and pointed directly at Mr. Pigott’s back at a slight downward angle. At this time, the gun was not pressed against Mr. Pigott’s head, and the barrel appears to have been about two to three feet away from his body.
Deputy Lacaze testified that he did not know why Deputy Gintz had been following Mr. Pigott in his personal vehicle. Deputy Lacaze did not draw his weapon, and he stated that Mr. Pigott and his children were not doing anything threatening when he arrived. Deputy Lacaze conducted a pat-down search of Mr. Pigott and told Mya that she could lower her hands. Deputy Gintz is then seen holstering his firearm. Deputy Lacaze requested to see Mr. Pigott’s driver’s license, and Mr. Pigott complied. Mr. Pigott also offered to allow the officers to search his vehicle, and Deputy Lacaze conducted a cursory search but saw nothing suspicious.
Deputy Lacaze explained to Mr. Pigott that they had previously had problems at the RPDC with people driving by and throwing contraband over the fence. At the end of the encounter, Deputy Lacaze told Mr. Pigott that they had no reason to believe he was involved in any attempt to introduce illegal contraband into the RPDC and told Mr. Pigott that he was free to leave. Deputy Lacaze testified that Mr. Pigott had not been free to leave before this point.
The Internal Affairs Division of the Rapides Parish Sheriff’s Office concluded that Deputy Gintz showed poor judgment and decision making by leaving the facility without a supervisor, using his personal vehicle to follow another vehicle off the premises and using an improper show of force with his firearm.
Mr. Pigott testified that, as a result of the incident, he developed paranoia around law enforcement, and his children became afraid to sleep alone and would not go outside without their father. Mya began having nightmares and could not sleep alone for a year, and the family got her a service dog to help. K.P. previously wanted to be a game warden, but the incident with Deputy Gintz allegedly eroded his trust in law enforcement. Mr. Pigott testified that K.P. suffered such severe mental anguish that his personality and behavior had drastically changed; he was a happy, laid-back child and straight-A student who had never been in trouble before; and since April 17, 2020, K.P. has become depressed and angry, his grades have plummeted, and he’s gotten into trouble outside the home. Eventually, due partially to the fear and anxiety created by the incident, the family moved out of state.
Pigott filed a 1983, arguing excessive force and illegal seizure. The district court granted summary judgement as to both matters. The 5th affirmed as to the seizure (Qualified immunity granted) but reversed with respect to excessive force (qualified immunity denied).
A. Excessive force
A1. Severity of crime
That there reportedly had been recent attempts by others to introduce illegal contraband into the RPDC, without more, was not enough to give Deputy Gintz reasonable suspicion to stop the Pigotts’ vehicle. See Hankins (noting that recent criminal activity in a specific location, without a particular connection between the crime suspected in that area and the individual stopped, does not give an officer reasonable suspicion for a stop and, thus, weighs against the officer for the crime-severity Graham factor). Indeed, Gintz concedes that the basis for the stop was the Pigotts’ driving the wrong way down a one-way road—a minor traffic offense.
A2. Immediate threat and active resistance
Assuming, without deciding, that Deputy Gintz was objectively reasonable when he initially brandished his firearm while approaching the Pigotts’ vehicle, and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Pigotts, any perceived threat to Deputy Gintz’s own safety could have been quickly dispelled soon after the encounter began. At some point after approaching the Pigotts’ vehicle, Deputy Gintz could see the vehicle’s occupants, including the four minors. Because the RPDC houses only adults, he could readily determine that these children were not escapees.
Again, crediting the Pigotts’ version of the facts at summary judgment, Deputy Gintz could also see that the children were crying and afraid. No one in the vehicle attempted to flee or otherwise resist. And Mr. Pigott remained calm and compliant throughout the encounter. Even if Mr. Pigott was not initially compliant, it is clear from Deputy Lacaze’s body-camera footage that Mr. Pigott eventually followed Deputy Gintz’s orders, as he is seen standing still, with his back towards Deputy Gintz and his arms raised above his head, displaying no signs of resistance. Yet, despite the Pigotts’ overall compliance and lack of resistance, Deputy Gintz never holstered his firearm until after Deputy Lacaze arrived.
The videotape did not capture the events preceding Deputy Lacaze’s arrival. We thus must adopt the Pigotts’ depiction of Deputy Gintz’s conduct, which raises a question of material fact as to these assertions, the amount of force Deputy Gintz used after the perceived threat dissipated, and whether the Pigotts were actively resisting.
A3. Clearly established
An officer may not use force—non-deadly or otherwise—on a person who is complying with the officer’s commands, is not otherwise resisting, and poses no threat to the safety of others. See Ramirez (An officer may not constitutionally use force on a non-threatening subject offering no resistance or merely ‘passive’ resistance). That Deputy Gintz did not actually resort to the use of physical or deadly force does not alter this analysis. Drawing a gun constitutes use of force. See Heap (noting that officers approaching a vehicle with weapons drawn is a use of force).
When, as here, an officer uses non-physical force, the plaintiff’s lack of bodily injury is not determinative. See Solis (As long as a plaintiff has suffered ‘some injury,’ even relatively insignificant injuries and purely psychological injuries will prove cognizable when resulting from an officer’s unreasonable excessive force).
Under the Pigotts’ version of the facts, Deputy Gintz brandished his firearm for several minutes. He aimed his gun at both Mr. Pigott and the children, pointing it between Mr. Pigott’s eyes and pressing the barrel against the back of Mr. Pigotts’ head, all while he had his finger on the trigger. Deputy Gintz also threatened to “blow [Mr. Pigott’s] . . . head off” if he failed to comply with Deputy Gintz’s commands. Based upon the law of our circuit as it existed in April 2020, and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Pigotts, it was objectively unreasonable to use such force against the Pigotts, who had committed only a minor traffic offense and were subdued, compliant, nonthreatening, and not actively resisting.
B. Seizure
The parties agree that the Pigotts were “seized” when Deputy Gintz drew his weapon and commanded Mr. Pigott to get out of his truck. By the time the seizure occurred, Deputy Gintz had personally observed Mr. Pigott drive the wrong way down a one-way street, which ultimately gave Deputy Gintz reasonable suspicion to effect a traffic stop.
Regarding Deputy Gintz’s actions after effectuating the stop, the Pigotts contend that Deputy Gintz unlawfully prolonged their detention and failed to diligently pursue a means of investigation that would quickly confirm or dispel his suspicion.
Both parties agree that Deputy Gintz questioned Mr. Pigott about his truck pulling through the RPDC parking lot for the few minutes he was alone with the family. Once Deputy Lacaze arrived, he continued to question Mr. Pigott while conducting a pat-down search of Mr. Pigott. Deputy Lacaze then requested to see Mr. Pigott’s driver’s license so that he could run a computer check on it. Mr. Pigott also volunteered to have his truck searched, which lengthened the duration of the stop. The eleven-minute detention at issue here, as well as the questioning regarding possible illegal activity at the RPDC and the request to see Mr. Pigott’s license, were reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that justified the stop.
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/23/23-30879.0.pdf