Excessive Force When Cuffed Results in 2 Fractured Elbows

[justalayman]

Tryingtowin - He did ask for my ID and I continued riding, telling him I would stay to the side.

you screwed up. He asked for your ID which means you had to stop. You decided you would ignore his demand for your ID and leave.


Then, you go on to say:

, he reinforced my reaction and caused me to move back, where I intended to continue doing so until I saw another officer.

so you have another failure. Depending on your stance, demeanor, actions, and statements, the officer may have seen this as a defensive posture and treated you as such. If so, you have resisting arrest.


the more you tell, the more you show the the officer was justified in his actions. Unless you can show the officers actions while they were attempting to control you was excessive, you have already lost. Since you already admit to refusing to comply with the officers commands, I suspect you simply do not have a winning argument.

I was wondering; how are you doing all of this typing with all of the injuries you describe?

 

[anonfa]

Whether he accidentally knocked him off the bike or that happened as a result of the officer's attempt to stop the OP's flight we cannot say.

He said "stop the bike" and grabbed the handlebar with both hands. The bike slid from underneath me (it was icy), I was still standing with the bike in between us.

We don't know that he wasn't. The OP could also have asked if he was free to go.

It very likely was detention, and I did not ask. As I said, my (poor) decision to keep riding came from my reaction to his demeanor and the circumstances. I had certainly hoped he was going to ignore it and continue, and I could only ride slowly due to ice.

I think that clearly indicates a detention. Fleeing a detention is never a good idea and can be charged as a crime.

Which they did - by issuing a ticket for obstruction. (again I assume it was thrown out, there is no court rec).

I was clearly in the (legal) wrong for continuing to ride / fleeing, but the injury came after both officers had me on the ground, each with his knee on my back, and two other officers standing nearby. I did not present any resistance to their attempt to cuff me as my main concern was his behavior - wanting other officers to be present before he physically apprehended me.

 

[CdwJava]

He said "stop the bike" and grabbed the handlebar with both hands. The bike slid from underneath me (it was icy), I was still standing with the bike in between us.

That doesn't sound like he dumped the bike to injure you. This is likely a reasonable act even if it may not have been the smartest move on the officer's part.

It very likely was detention, and I did not ask.

If he asked for ID, it was.

As I said, my (poor) decision to keep riding came from my reaction to his demeanor and the circumstances. I had certainly hoped he was going to ignore it and continue, and I could only ride slowly due to ice.

You gambled and you lost. People who run from the police often do that. They HPE the officer will just let it pass ... sometimes they do, but usually we take exception to people running from us.

Which they did - by issuing a ticket for obstruction. (again I assume it was thrown out, there is no court rec).

You do not know it was "thrown out" only that it appears not to have been filed ... yet.

I was clearly in the (legal) wrong for continuing to ride / fleeing, but the injury came after both officers had me on the ground, each with his knee on my back, and two other officers standing nearby. I did not present any resistance to their attempt to cuff me as my main concern was his behavior - wanting other officers to be present before he physically apprehended me.

And until you make that complaint or file a claim and a lawsuit, no one will be looking into the level of force used and whether or not it is reasonable.

 

[tranquility]

Regarding if it is a detention or not:

If he asked for ID, it was.

I hope to heck not or there is a great deal of jurisprudence in error. Lots of cops ask for IDs all the time. The legal fiction is that they're just *asking* and not *demanding*. A cop can always ask without it being a detention, but a demand requires a reasonable suspicion.

 

[Zigner]

Regarding if it is a detention or not:
I hope to heck not or there is a great deal of jurisprudence in error. Lots of cops ask for IDs all the time. The legal fiction is that they're just *asking* and not *demanding*. A cop can always ask without it being a detention, but a demand requires a reasonable suspicion.

Tranq -

The request was during a TRAFFIC STOP
It was a detention.

 

[tranquility]

I agree there was a detention, but the asking for ID had nothing to do with having a reasonable person feeling it was one or a LOT of case law goes out the window. While all facts have to be considered in the totality of the circumstances as to if a reasonable person would believe they were not free to go about their business, the "asking" for an ID better not be the key one.

It is clear the officer felt there was flight from a detention and it is also clear the OP is a little jumbled in the important facts. *I* would have loved a "STOP" from the officer before he creamed the guy.

Saying he had a report the OP was blocking traffic and then asking for ID is a really weak claim of detention for the amount of force used.

Info edit:
"Stop the bike" with hands on the handlebars is where I'd say a reasonable person would think the detention began.

 

[CdwJava]

Well, I have to say that if I stop someone and ask him to provide me with ID, it is reasonable to assume he is being detained and is not free to go on his volition. Your opinion might differ, but I would strongly suspect that a court would rule such a thing a detention unless there were some other factors present indicating that it was a consensual inquiry only, like, "Hey, do you mind if I see your ID?"

It also depends on whether or not the OP actually submitted to the officer's authority. If he stopped, responded, then took off, then he almost certainly fled the detention.

And we don't know the officer "creamed" anyone. It sounds as if he pulled up to or in front of the OP, the OP tried to pass and the officer grabbed the bike telling him to get off the bike. Somehow (either intentionally or accidentally) the OP dumped over then proceeded to back up and was taken down forcefully ... maybe, excessively.

But, as he has already approached some attorneys and none are willing to take the case on contingency, that signals that ether the attorneys do not deal with these sorts of matters, or, they felt his claims were weak at best. I know of attorneys that live to sue the cops, and if there was a chance of winning (or, more likely, settling out of court) they would be all over this. I can't imagine IL is any less litigious than CA.

 

[Zigner]

Per the OP, he never even lost his footing. He never "dumped over"

 

[tranquility]

Both brought me to the ground face first (incidentally hard enough to bruise the right side). When they cuffed me, they twisted my arms such that the backs of my hands faced each other. Their force was so excessive as to cause massive bruising along the entirety of each forearm and a fracture and a break to both elbows (as confirmed by xray).

I guess it was just a milk deficiency and had nothing to do with the force used.

 

[tranquility]

On another note, remember what instigated the detention. A report of a person blocking traffic. A misdemeanor (Or, infraction, depending on the actual facts.) not committed in the officer's presence. Seems like, unless there is an identified citizen who will make the arrest, it's time for a consensual encounter and not a detention.

We don't know if we have that citizen somewhere so it is not really key to our discussion. It just is interesting.

 

[Zigner]

I guess it was just a milk deficiency and had nothing to do with the force used.

I was referring to the initial encounter (not the subsequent take-down) - sorry 'bout that.

 

[anonfa]

And we don't know the officer "creamed" anyone. It sounds as if he pulled up to or in front of the OP, the OP tried to pass and the officer grabbed the bike telling him to get off the bike. Somehow (either intentionally or accidentally) the OP dumped over then proceeded to back up and was taken down forcefully ... maybe, excessively.

I had actually just ridden by the police station, looking for a nearby post office (someone told me these are open at night thus enabling a chance to get warm).

It was after I turned around and road by the second time. I was just past the police station, parallel, facing away from it. He pulled up along my side and said "someone called in and said you were riding in traffic" (there was a single car approx. 20 minutes earlier, so I also doubted the claim). He asked why I was out here, I said I was homeless looking for somewhere warm to stay. I mentioned looking for the post office, that someone said it was open. He said it wasn't. At that point, I said I would try riding further to the side of the road, and started riding again as he started asking for I.D. I went around the corner onto the next road w/o hearing him say anything further, and road about 100 feet onto that road.

And we don't know the officer "creamed" anyone. It sounds as if he pulled up to or in front of the OP, the OP tried to pass and the officer grabbed the bike telling him to get off the bike. Somehow (either intentionally or accidentally) the OP dumped over then proceeded to back up and was taken down forcefully ... maybe, excessively.

He pulled up along side of me again, I looked at him right as he said "hey! stop the bike" while simultaneously running out of the vehicle towards me, grabbing the handlebar (& knocking the bike down). It happened so fast I hardly had chance to react. Snow and ice prevented me from accelerating, et cetera.

Per the OP, he never even lost his footing. He never "dumped over"

That is accurate, until the second officer came and they brought me down, of course.

But, as he has already approached some attorneys and none are willing to take the case on contingency, that signals that ether the attorneys do not deal with these sorts of matters, or, they felt his claims were weak at best. I know of attorneys that live to sue the cops, and if there was a chance of winning (or, more likely, settling out of court) they would be all over this. I can't imagine IL is any less litigious than CA.

Yesterday I obtained significantly more information about which attorneys to contact online. Unfortunately I live in a very rural area over an hour away from the largest region and the diversity of attorneys is limited. Thus those I had contacted prior did not deal with these matters (civil rights, apparently).

My focus has been on seeking medical treatment, which unfortunately I still do not have due to lack of finances and lack of responses by facilities operating on financial assistance basis.

And diagnosis has been poor. I had to insist on an Xray 3 weeks after initial injury, which a local MD described only as a fracture. Yet I am very certain there is a complete break in the other elbow (the tell-tail gap and failure of the arm when lifting even it's own weight 90* over my head makes this obvious).

In other words, I'm concerned that I still don't have enough medical information for a lawyer, let alone actually fixing the problem before it becomes more permanent than it already is. Medical treatment has been the distracting issue.

Thanks again for your time replying.

 

[tranquility]

Look, I think I am most sympathetic to your story here. But we can't really advise you anything other than to seek out an attorney as your facts are very convoluted. You certainly have some issues which could possibly be raised and enough damages to make it worth the effort of an attorney. So, if you can find an attorney who will represent you on contingency after review of the facts, you may get the help you need. If not, even though you are intelligent and articulate, there is no way you're going to get redress by going pro per. You don't need the medical information now. Part of the attorney's job will be to develop the medical facts.

Some things in your favor:
--The claim you fled detention is quite problematical. The legal question is, before the force was used on you, would a reasonable person feel he was not free to go about his business? On your story, I'd say you were not detained until the force on the bicycle. But, we have not heard the officer's side yet.

--The force used must be reasonable bearing in mind the risk/resistance and the crime being investigated. You have not expressed any resistance beyond leaving the scene of the purported detention. Nor have you expressed any actions or other signs you were going to be violent or dangerous to the police officer. Those facts combined with the crime being investigated would make a hard argument for the police to claim they used reasonable force based on your injuries.

--I am uncertain as to if the police had the legal right to detain you in the first place. Certainly they can stop you and identify you if they had a reasonable suspicion that you had been or will be involved with a specific crime. There will be some objective evidence of this if true. The officer will have the identity of the complaining party, there may be a radio log of the original call (if not waived down by the complaining party) and/or of the report of the crime or crime broadcast. If not, the officer will have to come up with an interesting story about how things happened which gave him the right to detain you at all.

Some things against:
--We nor you have have any idea of the officer's side. Little things can make a big difference. While I think the path to tread here is far more narrow than the other poster's are making it out, there are certainly numerous ways everything here was legal and perfectly fine.

--Qualified immunity is a high hurdle to overcome.

--People tend to trust and believe cops and tend to distrust and not believe homeless people who are trying to get money from the government.

Good luck and I hope you recover completely.

 

[anonfa]

Thank you

Thank you tranquility and everyone else for your time and replies, you have been most helpful. I will make you aware of the outcome for reference purposes.

 

[tranquility]

This is not controlling law for you, nor is the holding on your issue. But, the following 9th circuit case has many similar issues as you have being discussed. Read it to educate yourself on how the court will think and not what the court's results will be.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/02/03/10-10036.pdf