缅北轮奸

A Sarasota County sheriff’s deputy used excessive force on a handicapped, 100-pound driver in 2020 and is not entitled to immunity from lawsuits, a federal appeals court ruled in a case that could affect officers’ insurance coverage in similar cases.

In Jeremy Jones vs. David Ceinski Jr., the 11^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said last week that law officers are generally allowed some use of force when a motorist’s firearm is nearby. But once the person is subdued, a chokehold and punch to the head is considered a violation of the driver’s constitutional rights, the court said.

“Unlike the initial force used to restrain Jones, Ceinski’s uses of force after he had ‘fully secured’ Jones were excessive and gratuitous,” 11^th Circuit Chief Judge William Pryor wrote in the May 8 opinion.

The decision overturns a lower federal court’s 2023 ruling that granted summary judgment to the police officer and dismissed the lawsuit brought by Jones. The appeals court remanded the case to the district court to proceed with the suit.

It’s not clear if Sarasota County carries liability insurance on law officers or if the deputy had his own coverage. Florida law caps most damage awards in tort lawsuits filed against local governments, but they are free to obtain insurance coverage for up to the cap amount, attorneys said.

Sarasota County officials and the county attorney in the case could not be reached for comment Monday. In general, large Florida cities and counties are self-insured to cover claims of excessive force by officers, but medium and smaller cities and counties often rely on insurance carriers or trusts, including the Florida Municipal Insurance Trust and the Florida Association of Counties Trust. The Counties Association Trust does not cover Sarasota County, an official there said Monday.

The Ceinski case began late one night in August of 2020. Deputy Ceinski observed a car with the passenger door open as the vehicle turned a corner. He pulled the car over, the court explained. The driver, Jeremy Jones, complied with the deputy, stopped the car and remained inside. Ceinski asked him to step out. But because of severe osteoporosis, a deformity that causes his hands and feet to remain in a permanently flexed position, Jones appeared to take a long time to open the door. There was no evidence he was under the influence of alcohol or drugs, the court noted.

Jones also is 5 feet, 4 inches tall and weighs only about 100 pounds. After reviewing Jones’ driver’s license and registration, the deputy asked the driver if any weapons were in the car. Jones said yes and volunteered that he held a concealed-carry permit.

After he saw the gun under the driver’s seat, Cienski grabbed Jones by the wrist, twisted his arm and pushed him against the car.

“While pressing Jones against the car, Ceinski ‘put his arms around [Jones’s] neck’ and “choked him to the point that [he] was unable to breathe,'” the court wrote, quoting from Jones’ testimony.

Ceinski then told Jones to “stop resisting.” Jones responded, “I’m not resisting. You’re choking me. I can’t breathe. Let me go.” Ceinski then punched Jones on the top of the head with a closed fist while he held him in the chokehold, the court recounted.

Ceinski retrieved the firearm. He also called Jones a “handicapped” person and used a racial epithet, Jones testified.

Jones soon after filed suit against Ceinski, alleging that the officer violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force. Jones said he had suffered minor injuries and emotional distress in the incident.

“At all material times, Officer Ceinski had a legal duty to use only that amount and degree of force as was reasonable under the circumstances,” reads the lawsuit complaint, filed in 2022. “Jones, with his open and obvious handicap, posed no threat to Officer Ceinski.”

A federal magistrate judge for the Middle District of Florida granted Ceinski’s motion to dismiss, citing the doctrine of qualified immunity for law officers. The deputy did not violate any of Jones’ established rights, the lower court judge decided.

The appellate judges disagreed.

“When we view the facts in the light most favorable to Jones, we conclude that a reasonable jury could find that Ceinski used excessive force when he choked and punched Jones after he was subdued,” the appeals court opinion reads.

The judges went to some length to explain that court rulings through the years have granted law officers considerable leeway on when to use force on people in traffic stops and other encounters, an issue that has been at the heart of numerous police brutality claims in recent years, across the country.

When an officer confronts an armed suspect in a tense and dangerous situation, the law does not require the officer to “hope for the best” and “wait until the moment a suspect uses a deadly weapon to act to stop the suspect,” the appeals court wrote, citing its decision in a 2010 case.

“In that circumstance, an ‘officer is entitled to continue his use of force until a suspect thought to be armed is ‘fully secured,'” the Pryor court wrote. Twisting Jones’ arm and pushing him against the car were reasonable uses of force.

But that’s where officers must draw the line of restraint.

The mere presence of a gun may not warrant an officer’s use of force if the suspect cannot access the firearm, the court noted. “A person who at one time had a gun, but clearly has had the gun removed, is no different than any other unarmed individual.”

Ceinski’s attorneys argued in court that the officer’s use of force was minimal, producing only minimal injuries. But the court said that has never been a defense used to immunize officers when a subject poses no threat.

Jones also had to show that his constitutional right was clearly established. It was, the appeals court said, thanks to numerous court rulings through the years that underscore the limits of law officers’ use of physical force. “Here, we apply the clear and obvious principle that an officer ‘violates a suspect’s rights under the Fourth Amendment’ when he uses ‘unprovoked force against a non-hostile and non-violent suspect who has not disobeyed instructions.'”

The judges also noted that a court may consider an officer’s vile language in such a case but noted that words alone cannot prove an unconstitutional use of force. The officer’s “evil intentions” should not be considered when evaluating excessive force, the court said.

Jones’ attorney said the 11^th Circuit opinion affirms established law on law enforcement’s use of force and it should inform officers’ actions going forward.

“The officer should have known what he was doing was wrong,” said attorney David Smith, of Sarasota.

Barring an unlikely decision by the 11^th Circuit to reconsider its ruling, a jury will now be asked to decide on damages, and jurors will be able to see Jones’ physical condition, Smith said. A date for the trial has not been set.

“We welcome the opportunity for a jury to see what he has to go through, every day,” Smith said. “It’s hard for him to do basic functions. It’s a challenge for him and it’s hard to appreciate what it’s like to live in his shoes. I hope this can be resolved and he can find some peace.”

Smith declined to comment on why Sarasota County or the sheriff’s office was not named as a defendant, or if they may be included in litigation at a later date.

Attorneys for Ceinsky could not be reached for comment.

Topics Lawsuits Florida