On Friday, the Supreme Court of North Carolina decided a civil case in which an arrestee alleged that he was handcuffed too tightly by the arresting officer. The court allowed the suit to proceed over the officer’s claim of public official immunity. This post provides more detail about that case and about the law of tight handcuffing more broadly. Last week’s case. The recent case is Bartley v. High Point. It began when a motorist crossed a double yellow line to pass a slow-moving vehicle. An officer saw this traffic violation and activated his lights and siren. The motorist allegedly did not notice the lights and siren, pulled into his own driveway, and got out of his car. The officer, in plain clothes, pulled into the driveway and ordered the motorist to get back in his vehicle. The motorist allegedly did not recognize the officer as such and refused to re-enter his car. The officer then handcuffed the motorist, arrested him for resisting an officer, and cited him for the traffic violation. The charges were eventually dismissed and the motorist filed a civil suit, one aspect of which was his claim that the officer handcuffed him too tightly, leaving red marks and bruises on his wrists, despite the motorist’s request that the handcuffs be loosened. In an opinion by Justice Earls, the supreme court found that the allegation of tight handcuffing was evidence of excessive force, and therefore of malice, which created a genuine issue of fact regarding the applicability of [...]
Faculty Coordinators
