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."

Filed Under: 5th circuit, graham dyer, mesquite, police, qualified immunity, texas


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Norahc (profile), 22 Apr 2020 @ 1:56pm

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 22 Apr 2020 @ 2:20pm

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Apr 2020 @ 3:32pm

        Re: Re:

        It has no legal basis and only shields bad cops from the repercussions of their actions.

        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.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 22 Apr 2020 @ 3:52pm

          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"...

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 22 Apr 2020 @ 7:20pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Has anyone seen any of these mythical "Good Cops" in action anywhere?

            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?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Bergman (profile), 23 Apr 2020 @ 2:04am

            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.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Anton Sherwood (profile), 22 Apr 2020 @ 8:21pm

          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.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Apr 2020 @ 5:12pm

        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.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 22 Apr 2020 @ 7:10pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          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.

          Not needed because (a) private citizens cannot sue them for that and (b) it's not illegal, because traffic laws exempt emergency vehicles.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Bergman (profile), 23 Apr 2020 @ 2:06am

          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.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Max, 22 Apr 2020 @ 2:29pm

      Re:

      Ah, yes, the first mistake right there - assuming that the "protect" bit was ever meant to have anything to do with the population...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 22 Apr 2020 @ 2:37pm

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 22 Apr 2020 @ 2:44pm

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Apr 2020 @ 4:04pm

        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?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Anton Sherwood (profile), 22 Apr 2020 @ 6:56pm

    as we in-English say

    Is there a difference between an “in-custody death” and a “death in custody”?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    dr evil, 22 Apr 2020 @ 10:28pm

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2020 @ 4:19am

    Hi, out_of_the_blue. In the event you're still reading this... suck it!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    out_of_the_blue, 24 Apr 2020 @ 12:54pm

    OK. Mine's a cherry flavor Jolly Rancher.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.