Lockhart-Bembery v. Wayland Police Dept, Nos. 06-1720, 06-2228. During the course of assisting a motorist, a cop told a motorist to move her car. She was injured. She sued under § 1983 under some kind of state-created-danger due process claim. (The cop seems to have been a bit of a jerk, and this happened, “The car dragged Lockhart-Bembery, face-first and face-down, down the hill with it until it collided with some trees and stopped.”) Even though she disclaimed a Fourth Amendment theory at trial, the case went to a jury, and the judge instructed on a 4th amendment theory (that she was “seized” by being told to push her car) and the jury awarded nominal damages, and the court awarded attorneys fees. The first finds that there really wasn’t a violation of civil rights to begin with.
Despite the abandonment at summary judgment of the 4th amendment claim, the First reaches the issue. Unfortunately, this case seems to very aggressively view the “community caretaker doctrine” when there are probably easier ways to reach the same result. The First then concludes that the policeman’s gesture’s were not a seizure, and if they were a seizure, they were reasonable. Now why did they have to go and do that? And really, do they need to say, “ There is no requirement that officers must select the least intrusive means of fulfilling community caretaking responsibilities.”?
The state-created danger theory also fails, because the state didn’t create the danger and the cop didn’t act unreasonably.
Comments