Howell v. Smith

Dist. Ct. erred in denying defendant-police officer’s motion for summary judgment in plaintiff’s section 1983 action, alleging that defendant used excessive force when handcuffing plaintiff during 30-minute period of time that defendant and other officers were investigating report from third-party that plaintiff had fired gun during road rage incident. After defendant had received third-party’s report, he encountered plaintiff’s car that matched description given by third-party and conducted “high risk traffic stop” that required that he place handcuffs on plaintiff during his investigation until other officers brought third-party to scene to make identification. As such, defendant was entitled to qualified immunity on instant excessive force claim, where: (1) third-party raised serious allegations that involved use of deadly force, which supported defendant‘s decision to place plaintiff in handcuffs; and (2) record showed that third-party affirmatively identified plaintiff as perpetrator, although plaintiff was eventually released when police could not locate firearm in plaintiff’s car. Moreover, plaintiff never told defendant during his detention that he was in pain or was actually suffering because of use of handcuffs.