A more appropriate headline for the article regarding an excessive force case would be, “Judge finds use of force ‘unreasonable’ but limits claims due to technicality.” The judge’s opinion provides a lengthy analysis regarding evidence that the force used was excessive.

U.S. District Judge Mustafa Kasubhai said that Eamonn Kerr-Daly was unarmed, was not aggressive or violent, and was following the officers’ commands as he put on his shoes. “The officers did not ask Eamonn to put his hands up, to stand up, to stay still, and gave no warning that they were about to grab Eamonn, arrest him, or use force,” Kasubhai wrote.

The judge described how multiple officers held down Kerr-Daly, while two other officers each punched his face and a third fired taser darts that lodged in his chest. They hog-tied him and carried him out of his home. Kasubhai concluded that the “officers’ use of force was unreasonable under the circumstances.”

Kasubhai then turned to the issue of Qualified Immunity. Upholding an excessive force claim against the technicality of Qualified Immunity requires a two-part test. The first part establishes that officers violated an individual’s Fourth Amendment rights, and the second part establishes that officers should have known they were violating the individual’s Fourth Amendment rights.

Clearly, the first part is satisfied as Kasubhai wrote, “[There is] sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that Eamonn’s Fourth Amendment rights against excessive force were violated.”

However, the judge also determined that there is not enough evidence that the officers should have known they were violating Kerr-Daly’s Fourth Amendment rights.

It’s not that they didn’t use excessive force. It’s that there was no evidence that they should have known that using excessive force in that particular way violated his Fourth Amendment rights.

The opinion clearly shows the court found evidence of excessive force used against Eamonn Kerr-Daly. It is only the doctrine of Qualified Immunity, essentially a technicality in the law, that prevents the claim of excessive force from continuing to trial.

Barbara Kenny
Springfield