Appeals Court Says Parents Can Continue Suing The Three Mesquite Police Officers Who Helped Kill Their Son
from the wheels-of-justice-continue-inching-forward dept
It has been nearly seven years since 18-year-old Graham Dyer died due to injuries he sustained while riding in the back of Mesquite (TX) Police car. Dyer, all of 5'4" and 110 pounds, was picked up by Mesquite officers while experiencing a bad acid trip. Dyer had no idea what was happening to him or where he was. As the officers transported him to jail, he thrashed around in the back of the patrol car, ultimately slamming his head into the seat, window, and metal bars forty-six times.
The officers never bothered to restrain him. But they did stop the car to head into the back seat to tase him, including one prolonged burst (eight seconds) delivered directly to Dyer's testicles. Dyer's parents had no idea what had happened to their son, who was picked up in good health (bad trip notwithstanding) but was dead less than 24 hours later. The Mesquite PD refused to release any records of this arrest to Dyer's parents. The Dyers finally obtained some records, but from the FBI, which had been called in to investigate the in-custody death.
Armed with these records, the Dyers sued the officers and paramedics who handled the arrest and the less-than-adequate care their son received. The paramedics have been dismissed from the lawsuit, but most of the allegations against the officers survive. Two of the three officers involved are still facing the Dyers' lawsuit. And the Fifth Circuit Appeals Court has just thrown the third officer back into the mix, stripping the qualified immunity the lower court awarded him.
The Appeals Court says the lower court made the right call for two of the officers, who are facing deliberate indifference claims for apparently not caring at all the arrestee they were delivering to jail was possibly seriously injured. From the decision [PDF]:
The district court correctly found a genuine dispute concerning whether Gafford and Heidelburg were deliberately indifferent to the serious medical needs of a detainee in their custody. A reasonable trier of fact could find that those Officers were aware that Graham, in the grip of a drug-induced psychosis, struck his head violently against the interior of Heidelburg’s patrol car over 40 times en route to jail and thereby sustained severe head trauma. Both Officers told Graham to stop hitting his head and Heidelburg even pulled his patrol car over in an effort to stop him. Gafford acknowledged that, during his encounter with Graham, he knew “[t]here could be some inherent dangers” associated with head trauma; Heidelburg testified that what Graham was doing “certainly could” cause a head injury. Yet the Officers sought no medical care for Graham when they arrived at the jail. Nor did they alert jail officers (who had no way of knowing what had happened en route to the jail) of the possibility that Graham had seriously injured himself. The record instead reflects that the jail sergeant was “[i]nformed by [the] transport officers [that] Dyer had been medically cleared at the scene.”
As the court noted there, "no officer" informed jail staff about Dyer's possible injuries. That includes Officer Zachary Scott, who was also aware of Dyer's unrestrained thrashing in the back of the patrol car, but similarly chose to say nothing about it.
The district court found the Dyers “failed to present evidence that [Scott was] aware of facts indicating a risk of injury and inferred a risk of injury to Graham.” True, Scott’s affidavit stated he “never observed anything or any action by anyone which might cause a head injury on the part of [Graham],” nor did he “observe[] anything to indicate [Graham] might have any serious injury.” But his deposition testimony was quite different. Scott testified he assumed Heidelburg pulled the patrol car over because Graham “was banging his head.” Scott also testified he tried “to prevent [Graham] from banging his head on the back of the car.” Lastly, Scott stated he did not tell the jail sergeant about Graham slamming his head, nor did he recall hearing anyone else report it.
None of the officers seemingly cared if Dyer lived or died or even got a second look from jail medical staff. Dyer died and now all three officers will face deliberate indifference claims from Dyer's parents.
[I]n this case a reasonable jury could find that (1) Graham violently bashed his head against the interior of Officer Heidelburg’s patrol car over 40 times while en route to jail; (2) Officers Heidelburg, Gafford, and Scott were fully aware of Graham’s actions and of their serious danger; (3) the Officers sought no medical attention for Graham; and (4) upon arriving at jail, the Officers failed to inform jail officials what Graham had done to himself, telling them only that Graham had been “medically cleared” at the scene. From this evidence, a reasonable jury could conclude that the Officers “were either aware or should have been aware, because it was so obvious, of an unjustifiably high risk to [Graham’s] health,” did nothing to seek medical attention, and even misstated the severity of Graham’s condition to those who could have sought help.
Let's hope the jury is reasonable, because everything about these officers' actions isn't. The officers chose to handle a small teen's horrific drug reaction by subjecting him to further horrors, including several tasings. The audio from the in-car camera caught one officer telling the traumatized Dyer, "Motherfucker, I'm going to kill you." And so he did. Maybe not immediately, but that was the end result of these officers' actions -- actions that included choosing not to inform anyone about the multiple head injuries Dyer suffered while in their "care."
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 5th circuit, graham dyer, mesquite, police, qualified immunity, texas
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Qualified Immunity has to go. All it does is produce officers who have no reason, desire or willingness to be the "protectors" they like to proclaim they are.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
It has no legal basis and only shields bad cops from the repercussions of their actions. The fact that it also somehow invalidates our rights is ignored. It is a get out of legal consequences card that not even doctors have after eight years of extra school.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Ah, yes, the first mistake right there - assuming that the "protect" bit was ever meant to have anything to do with the population...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So if they come right out and admit on tape they are going to kill the detainee the appeals court can find no way to award QI.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I wouldn’t be so sure about that. You never know which judge, at which level of the judiciary, might find a way to justify QI for cops that kill citizens by way of indifference to human life.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Theoretically, and I assume this was the purpose, it also protects good cops from bullshit lawsuits. We don't necessarily want every cop who searches a house, with a warrant obtained on a truly reasonable basis, to then waste time on a 4th-amendment lawsuit—for example. Applying this principle to illegal activity is obscene.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
for civil actions, sure qualified immunity "could" prevent "Good Cops" from being falsely accused of things they may or may not have done...
Has anyone seen any of these mythical "Good Cops" in action anywhere? How many headlines of "Cop sued for illegal actions during legal search"? Here let me google that for you:
"California Cops Who Allegedly Stole Over $225,000 Can't Be Sued"
"61-year-old man in Tennessee was shot to death "
"It took eight years for a family in Colorado to win $1.6 million after Denver police mistakenly raided their home, beat some of them and then charged them with assaulting the officers."
ok, your claim is bogus, there are no good cops, and they don't get sued for illegal activities (see the headlines prove it...) /s
Qualified immunity has NO place in criminal charges, if the police actions are that brutal (assult and battery basically at a minimum in many cases), but sometimes it's close to Murder and they still get a magic handwave from the judge...
"These are not the Cops you are looking for"...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The cop just needs to threaten to kill the detainee in a way that hasn't been previously found to infringe on a citizen's rights.
/s, maybe?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
"It has no legal basis"
The only thing I have come up with that makes any sense wrt this law is the following.
This so called immunity from prosecution should only be used to allow an officer to exceed the posted speed limit in order to issue a citation. Blowing through red lights is not included, neither is busting heads and popin caps in asses.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
as we in-English say
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Not needed because (a) private citizens cannot sue them for that and (b) it's not illegal, because traffic laws exempt emergency vehicles.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, there was Frank Serpico who reported widespread corruption in the NYPD. Of course, the bad cops got him shot and tried to let him bleed out for that, and he quickly became an ex-cop. And, let's see, there was the officer in Toronto who managed to arrest a mass murderer without shooting, despite the guy's efforts at suicide-by-cop. Wouldn't it be great if I could think of more than 2?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
a question of scope
A suit against a cop for merely executing a valid warrant, i.e. not alleging any wanton property damage or abuse of the occupants, would be dismissed for failing to state any §1983 cause of action, before any invocation of immunity. So it's not that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
but but but
the motorboat sound of WE INVESTIGATED OURSELVES. perhaps they also need FBI DOJ intervention for corruption. amazing how many police departments are under judicial management.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Qualified Immunity ONLY applies in civil court. It has NEVER applied to criminal charges.
Police are going uncharged in criminal court because prosecutors see them as friends, and due to corruption, refuse to file charges against their friends.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Police in the US only have two rights citizens in general lack. Those are the right to be the aggressor and still claim self defense, and the right to carry guns in places citizens are prohibited from doing so.
Everything else police do is because they are citizens and any citizen can lawfully do that. Google the Necessity Doctrine sometime, it's illuminating.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: as we in-English say
Grammar.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hi, out_of_the_blue. In the event you're still reading this... suck it!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
OK. Mine's a cherry flavor Jolly Rancher.
[ link to this | view in thread ]