WPI 342.01 Unreasonable Force—Fourth Amendment—Burden of Proof on the Issues
6A WAPRAC WPI 342.01Washington Practice Series TMWashington Pattern Jury Instructions--Civil
6A Wash. Prac., Wash. Pattern Jury Instr. Civ. WPI 342.01 (7th ed.)
Washington Practice Series TM
Washington Pattern Jury Instructions--Civil
April 2022 Update
Part XVII. Civil Rights
Chapter 342. Civil Rights—Fourth Amendment—Unreasonable Search and Seizure
WPI 342.01 Unreasonable Force—Fourth Amendment—Burden of Proof on the Issues
(Insert name of plaintiff)claims that(name of defendant)subjected(name of plaintiff)to the deprivation of [his] [her] Fourth Amendment rights by [arresting] [seizing] [him] [her] with unreasonable force.
(Name of plaintiff)has the burden of proving each of the following propositions:
(1) That(name of defendant)arrested [or seized](name of plaintiff)under color of law;
(2) That the force used to effect the arrest [or seizure] was unreasonable under the circumstances; and
(3) That(name of defendant's)actions [proximately] caused injury or damage to(name of plaintiff).
If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that each of these propositions has been proved, then your verdict should be for(name of plaintiff)[on this claim]. On the other hand, if any of these propositions has not been proved, then your verdict should be for(name of defendant)[on this claim].
NOTE ON USE
Use this instruction when it is claimed that plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights were violated by an unreasonable use of force in the arrest or seizure of the plaintiff. For cases in which the defendant did not directly arrest the plaintiff, but instead caused the plaintiff to be arrested, the instruction will need to be modified accordingly.
Use this instruction with WPI 340.01 (Claims Instruction for Section 1983 Cases) and WPI 340.03 (Civil Rights—“Under Color of Law”—Definition). Use this instruction in place of WPI 340.02 (Civil Rights—Individual Defendant—Burden of Proof on the Issues).
Regarding the bracketed word “proximately,” see the detailed discussion of causation issues found in WPI 340.06 (Civil Rights—Causation—Comment Only). Instructions on causation must be carefully tailored to the specific case. See also WPI 340.02 (Civil Rights—Individual Defendant—Burden of Proof on the Issues) and 340.04 (Civil Rights—“Subjects” and “Causes to be Subjected”—Definition) and the Notes on Use and Comments to these instructions.
Use the bracketed phrases as appropriate. When a seizure, other than an arrest, is an issue in the case, include the term and combine this instruction with WPI 342.02 (Definition of “Seizure” of a Person—Fourth Amendment).
COMMENT
This instruction uses the term “deprivation” in the first paragraph, rather than referring to a constitutional violation, in order to be consistent with the phraseology of WPI 340.01 (Claims Instruction for Section 1983 Cases) and WPI 340.02 (Civil Rights—Individual Defendant—Burden of Proof on the Issues).
A claim of violation of constitutional rights by the application of unreasonable force states a claim under the Fourth Amendment if the unreasonable force is applied when the plaintiff is free from incarceration or custody and the plaintiff is being arrested, stopped, or apprehended with or through the use of the force. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989). Note that different proof requirements exist for an incarcerated plaintiff's claim of cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. E.g., Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 318–26, 106 S.Ct. 1078, 89 L.Ed.2d 251 (1986).
The key issue is unreasonableness in the circumstances of the force used, which is analyzed separately from any alleged unreasonableness in the basis for an arrest or apprehension. See Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 105 S.Ct. 1694, 85 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985) (deadly force to apprehend apparently unarmed and fleeing suspect may violate constitutional rights despite probable cause for arrest).
The force must be objectively unreasonable under the circumstances in order to comprise a deprivation. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989).
In Brewer v. City of Napa, 210 F.3d 1093, 1097 (9th Cir. 2000), the court discussed the appropriateness of the instruction focusing on the totality of the circumstances, rather than a list of particular factors, and approved a totality of the circumstances instruction on the facts of that case. See also Robinson v. Solano County, 278 F.3d 1007, 1013–14 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Graham); Staats v. Brown, 139 Wn.2d 757, 774, 991 P.2d 615 (2000).
[Current as of September 2018.]
Westlaw. © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
| End of Document |