Description: Grand Rapids, Michigan personal injury lawyer represented the Appellant who sued the Defendant on a Federal Tort Claims Act theory.

On July 18, 2014, Defendants were searching for a criminal suspect named Aaron Davison. Police believed that Davison had committed felony home invasion, and the State of Michigan had issued a warrant for his arrest. Defendants were members of a “joint fugitive task force between the FBI and the City of Grand Rapids.” (R. 30 at PageID #108.) Defendant Allen
was a detective with the Grand Rapids Police and had been assigned to the FBI task force fulltime. Defendant Brownback was a special agent with the FBI. Neither officer was wearing a uniform as they conducted their search, but both of them were wearing lanyards with their badges displayed over their plainclothes.

Defendants knew that Davison was a 26 year-old white male between 5ʹ10″ and 6ʹ3″ tall
with glasses; short, dark hair; and a thin build. Defendants also knew that Davison had a habit of
buying a soft drink from a particular gas station every day between 2:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. And
Defendants had two photographs of Davison. In the first photograph, the lighting was so dark
that Davison appeared as the silhouette of a man playing electric guitar. The second photograph,
a driver’s license photo, showed Davison’s face clearly, but the photo was seven years old at the
time of the search.

Around 2:30 p.m., Defendants saw Plaintiff walking down the street in an area near the
gas station where Davison was known to buy his daily soft drinks. Although Plaintiff was
actually a 21-year-old college student who was walking between his two summer jobs,
Defendants thought Plaintiff might be their suspect because Plaintiff was a young white male
between 5ʹ10″ and 6ʹ3″ and was wearing glasses. From their unmarked vehicle, Defendants
studied Plaintiff’s face and decided that there was a “good possibility” that he was Davison.
(R. 73 at Page ID #429–30.) Defendants parked near Plaintiff and approached him. According to
Plaintiff, Defendants never identified themselves as police officers. But Defendants assert that
Allen identified himself as a police officer when he first approached Plaintiff.

Defendants started asking Plaintiff questions. They asked Plaintiff who he was, and
Plaintiff truthfully answered that his name was James. Defendants then asked Plaintiff for
identification, and Plaintiff said that he had none. Defendants told Plaintiff to put his hands on
his head and to face their vehicle. Plaintiff later testified that he complied because Defendants
“had small badges around their chest, and [he] assumed [Defendants had] some sort of
authority.” (Id. at PageID #474, 477.) Defendants asked Plaintiff if he was carrying any
weapons, and Plaintiff told them that he had a pocketknife. Detective Allen removed the
pocketknife from Plaintiff’s pocket, commented on the size of Plaintiff’s wallet, and then
removed that, too, from Plaintiff’s pocket. Plaintiff asked, “[a]re you mugging me?” and
attempted to run away, but Detective Allen tackled him, grabbed Plaintiff’s neck, and pushed
him to the ground. (Id. at PageID #474.) Plaintiff yelled for help and begged passersby to call
the police. Detective Allen then put Plaintiff in a chokehold, at which point, Plaintiff claimed, he
lost consciousness. Several seconds later, when Plaintiff came to, he bit into Detective Allen’s
arm. Detective Allen then started punching Plaintiff in the head and face “as hard as [he] could,
as fast as [he] could, and as many times as [he] could.” (Id. at PageID #433.) Plaintiff attempted
to escape and to fight back and eventually released his bite. But he could not get away; the fight
continued for over sixty seconds.

As Detective Allen continued to punch Plaintiff in the head and face, several bystanders
called the police and began filming the incident. Numerous police officers arrived on the scene,
one of whom ordered the bystanders to delete their videos because the videos could reveal the
identities of undercover FBI agents. Some of the bystanders deleted their videos, and footage of
the actual altercation was never discovered. The surviving footage from immediately after the
incident includes one bystander who can be heard saying, “I was worried. . . . They were out of
control pounding him. . . . They were pounding his fa--head for no reason; they were being
brutal.” (Ex. 6, Timestamp 0:47–1:11.) A bystander who called 911 told the operator “[t]hey’re
gonna kill this man. . . . We can’t see the victim now. They’re over top of him. They look like
they’re suffocating him. . . . I understand they have badges on, but I don’t see no undercover
police cars, no other—backup, no nothing.” (Ex. 18, Timestamp 1:43–3:21.)

Plaintiff was transported from the scene to the emergency room, where he received
medical treatment. The emergency room doctors concluded that Plaintiff’s injuries did not
require him to be admitted for further treatment, and they released him with a prescription for
painkillers. Upon Plaintiff’s discharge, police arrested him and took him to Kent County Jail.
Plaintiff spent the weekend in jail before posting bail and visiting another hospital for further
examination. Prosecutors pursued charges against Plaintiff, but a jury acquitted him of all
charges.

B. Procedural History

Plaintiff brought this suit alleging that Defendants violated his clearly established Fourth
Amendment rights by conducting an unreasonable seizure and by using excessive force. Plaintiff
also asserted a claim against the United States. The district court found that it lacked subjectmatter jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff’s claim against the United States, and it granted summary
judgment for Defendants on the basis that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.
Plaintiff then filed this timely appeal of his claims against Defendants.

Outcome: For the reasons explained above, the Court REVERSES the district court’s findings that

(1) the FTCA judgment bar precludes Plaintiff’s remaining claims and that (2) Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, VACATES the district court’s judgment in favor of Defendants, and REMANDS for proceedings consistent with this opinion

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: