In October, 2018, a motorcyclist was involved in a traffic accident and ended up injured in the median of a roadway. A Chicopee police officer came upon the scene and began to check on the well-being of the motorcyclist while calling for medical aid. The motorcyclist wanted no part of any interaction with the officer trying to render assistance. That desire presumably was a function of the reality that, while then unknown to the officer, the motorcyclist was operating without a license, had been drinking and smoking marijuana that night, had a warrant for his arrest and, last but certainly not least, possessed an illegal firearm.
Refusing the officer’s admonitions to stay still, the operator attempted to pull away from the officer, with the officer responding by using an escort technique to guide the operator to the side of the road. Once there, the officer and his backup attempted to bring the operator to the ground but the operator broke away and began to run back toward the road. The Chicopee officer tackled the operator to prevent him from running into the road and, with the help of backup, seated the operator on the ground, only to see the operator get up again and have to be taken to the ground again using an arm-bar takedown. It was later, after the operator again tried to break free and continued his fight with officers and a firefighter on scene that the plaintiff’s illegal gun, his license status and his warrant status were discovered.
After the plaintiff avoided criminal conviction, he brought a federal civil rights lawsuit alleging that he had been seized unlawfully and that unreasonable force had been used in what the plaintiff described as a “beating” by police officers on scene. In sum, the plaintiff alleged that it was not until after he had been seized by officers and that force was used on him that his criminal status was discovered. According to the plaintiff, the officers had no lawful basis to seize him and use force on him when they did.
RJA attorney Andy Gambaccini represented officers in the lawsuit and, after discovery, filed a summary judgment motion for the officers. After briefing and oral argument, the federal judge assigned to the case agreed with the officers’ dispositive motion that argued, in part, that the police actions at all stages of the interaction with the plaintiff, which evolved from a community caretaking endeavor to an investigatory detention and then to an arrest, were reasonable and within constitutional limits. Further, the Court agreed with the officers’ motion that the force used by the officers was objectively reasonable in the circumstances and did not violate the plaintiff’s rights. As a result, the Court granted the officers’ motion for summary judgment on all counts and entered judgment in favor of the officers.
