Youngstown Daily Legal News

Cincinnati police officer accused of excessive force loses appeal

ANNIE YAMSON
Special to the Legal News
Published: February 8, 2016

A federal court of appeals recently upheld the denial of summary judgment for a Hamilton County Sheriff’s deputy who is accused of using excessive force against an intoxicated woman.

Deputy William Cotton appealed from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, which declined to grant him summary judgment based on qualified immunity after he was sued by Sarah Curry.

In an opinion authored by Judge Helene White, the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held that Cotton was not entitled to summary judgment because the district court correctly ruled that legal questions regarding whether Cotton violated Curry’s constitutional rights still existed.

The case against Cotton stemmed from events that occurred on the night of Nov. 24, 2012 outside of the Inner Circle Night Club in Cincinnati.

Case summary states that Curry and her boyfriend, Jesus Aleman, were asked to leave the club after they got into a verbal altercation with other patrons.

Kasey Igwegbe, the head of security at the club, stated that Curry was aggressive toward the bar staff and patrons and that she directed racial slurs at him when she was asked to leave the establishment.

That evening, Cotton and Deputy Roy Berry were working a security detail at the club in their official capacities as sheriff’s deputies.

According to Curry’s version of events, she and Aleman were waiting outside for someone to retrieve her jacket when Cotton “demanded” that they go to their vehicle.

Curry said she was unsure why she was being asked to leave or why Cotton was being demanding. But, according to Cotton, Curry was combative and belligerent, refusing to comply with his request and shouting racial slurs at him and Berry.

Surveillance cameras outside the club captured the initial interaction between the parties. The footage showed Curry yelling at Berry and swinging at him, then Cotton approaching her from behind and taking her to the ground.

After a struggle, Curry appeared to be subdued but then crawled away from Cotton, stood up and swung her arms at him.

The footage ends with Cotton escorting Curry to the parking lot. At that point, Curry was not bleeding or handcuffed.

Curry eventually pleaded guilty to resisting arrest and she admitted to being intoxicated that evening, swiping at police officers and being combative with Cotton. But the facts in dispute took place outside of the view of surveillance cameras.

Curry contended that, once she and Cotton were out of the cameras’ reach and before any backup arrived, Cotton “mercilessly” beat her “to the point of bleeding profusely.”

Photos taken after the incident show baton marks on Curry’s arms and a cut on her forehead.

Cotton, however, claimed that Curry began resisting again as soon as they got to the parking lot.

When she grabbed at his collar, he took her to the ground again and, in order to gain control as she struggled, Cotton struck her with his baton.

Berry and Igwegbe corroborated Cotton’s account, stating that the cut on Curry’s forehead happened during that struggle.

Eventually, Curry was placed in handcuffs and ordered to sit on the ground until backup arrived.

Other officers who responded to the scene reported that Curry was “disruptive” and “irate,” even trying to attack officers despite being handcuffed.

Dashboard cameras from two Cincinnati police cruisers depicted Curry sitting on the ground with her hands cuffed behind her back, rocking back and forth or scooting along the ground while seated and appearing to yell.

In the recordings, Curry could be heard saying “help me,” “my head hurts” and “I want somebody please,” to which an officer responded, “You wouldn’t let the fire department treat you.”

A Cincinnati Fire Department report from that night states, “Patient was very combative and would not sit still for fire to evaluate.”

Hospital records from that night echo the sentiment, stating that Curry was belligerent, “combative and abusive with staff” and required sedation and restraints.

A sheriff’s office internal investigation following the incident concluded that Cotton’s use of force that night was consistent with department policy and state law.

But, on Aug. 7, 2013, Curry filed an action against Cotton, claiming excessive force and battery.

The district court’s denial of Cotton’s motion for summary judgment led to his appeal in the 6th Circuit court.

In his brief, Cotton did not dispute court precedent that violent force against a suspect who is subdued is not allowed. He contended that Curry was not subdued simply because she was in handcuffs because the evidence demonstrated that she continued to be combative.

But the court of appeals ruled that Cotton “mischaracterized” the district court’s ruling.

“Although Cotton argued in the district court that Curry resisted arrest in the parking lot while he was trying to place her in handcuffs, and noted that Curry continued to be combative with paramedics and officers on the way to the hospital by screaming and cursing, Cotton did not argue that using force against Curry after she was handcuffed was reasonable,” White wrote.

Instead, Cotton’s claim was that he did not use any force on Curry after she was in handcuffs and, in response to Curry’s claim that she was beaten after being cuffed, Cotton only contended that she was not credible.

“Thus, the district court did not hold that a reasonableness analysis ends when a suspect is handcuffed, but rather had no reason to consider that issue given the facts and arguments before it,” White wrote.

Cotton argued that uncontroverted evidence in the form of the cruiser footage demonstrated that Curry presented a danger to others and, therefore, use of force was reasonable.

But even accepting that use of force on a handcuffed individual was reasonable, the court of appeals held that the evidence was “neither uncontroverted nor conclusive.”

Curry specifically argued that she was already handcuffed and was not resisting while Cotton continued to use force against her and that this took place before other officers arrived on the scene, meaning there was no footage of the incident she described.

“None of Cotton’s evidence conclusively proves otherwise,” White wrote, noting that no footage showed what caused Curry’s injuries. “Thus, there are genuine factual disputes that preclude summary judgment on the qualified immunity issue.”

The court of appeals concluded by affirming the judgment of the district court with Judges Donald Lee Gilman and Jane Stranch concurring.

The case is cited Curry v. Cotton, case No. 15-3562.

[Back]