|
Wheeler v. City of Philadelphia, 367 F.Supp.3d
737 (E.Dist. Pa. 2005)
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989).
In Wheeler v. City of Philadelphia, the federal
trial court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dealt
with what law enforcement officers would consider a common
occurrence. Police responded to a call of a man who was
having a psychotic breakdown near his home. William Wheeler,
who was hallucinating, high on cocaine and armed, was
screaming at imaginary assailants in the street. When the
officers
arrived, Wheeler was armed with a steak knife, a screwdriver,
and a pair of scissors. The officers observed that Wheeler’s
wife had blood on her from an apparent wound inflicted by
William Wheeler. The officers attempted to calm Wheeler
down. Instead of calming down, Wheeler charged at the officers
with his screwdriver in hand. The officer’s pepper-sprayed
Wheeler. One officer kicked his legs out from under him
and the second officer struck him in the arm. The officers
handcuffed Wheeler and had him in a prone position while
awaiting emergency medical services. Wheeler went into cardiac
arrest and died. The autopsy indicated that the death was
the result of cardiac dysrhythmia, drug intoxication and
restraint. Wheeler’s wife filed a lawsuit against
the officers. In considering the validity of the claim,
the court applied the three-factor test from Graham v. Connor.
The three
factors are: The seriousness of the offense; whether
the subject posed a physical threat to the officers or some
other person present; and finally, whether the subject
is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade
arrest
by flight. The court, following a previous decision
by the United States Court of Appeal for the 3rd Circuit
considered five additional factors in the reasonableness
analysis:: the possibility the persons subject to the
police action are themselves violent or dangerous [i.e.
greater threat]; the duration of the action [i.e. greater
threat]; whether the action takes place in the context
of effecting an arrest [more force where arrest context
- i.e. severity of offense]; the possibility that the
suspect may be armed [i.e. greater threat]; and the
number
of persons with whom the police officers must contend
at one time [i.e. greater threat to officer]. It should
be noted that the additional factors used under 3rd
Circuit holdings, actually fall within the major considerations
announced in Graham.
In applying these factors to the facts of
the Wheeler case, the court noted that Officers had been
responded to a
call of a man with a weapon and had observed Mrs. Wheeler
with blood on her. Thus, at the time of the force, officers
would consider this to be a serious offense. The fact
that Mr. Wheeler was armed with a weapon established that
he posed a physical threat to the officers. When the officers
attempted to speak to him and calm him down, he resisted
and charged the officers with a screwdriver, thus establishing
active resistance to the officers’ attempt to arrest
him. Additionally, the court noted that the officers did
not reach for their firearms or “beat” Wheeler
with batons, but had attempted the use of pepper-spray
coupled with control tactics. The court concluded that
the use of force used by the officers in this case was
reasonable and dismissed the lawsuit.
|
Use of Force: Details & Ordering
In deciding to
use force officers must consider:
How serious is the offense which is suspected?
Is the person who will be the subject of the force
posing a threat to the officer or some other person at the scene?
Is the suspect attempting to resist arrest or
evade arrest by flight?
--PATC Quick Reference
Checklists can be found on bulletin boards and in squad cars across the country.
All are laminated for durability, and formatted for quick and easy reference
to the critical tasks that law enforcement face on a regular basis--
Use
of Force: Details & Ordering
View All Checklists |
