Brooks v. City of West Point, Mississippi

What This Case Is About

Gregory Brooks called 911 to complain about harassing phone calls from his sister. When Officer Birchfield responded and told Brooks he couldn’t immediately press charges, Brooks became angry and used profanity in telling Birchfield to leave his property. Birchfield decided to arrest Brooks for disorderly conduct, called for backup, and when Officer Spradling arrived, the officers used physical force that left Brooks with injuries. The Fifth Circuit held the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity on the excessive force claim but were entitled to immunity on the false arrest claim.

The Facts

Brooks called 911 to report harassing phone calls from his sister in Atlanta. Officer Jimmy Birchfield responded to Brooks’s home. When Birchfield told Brooks he could not immediately press charges, Brooks became angry and used curse words and disrespectful language telling Birchfield to get off his property. Crucially, Brooks did not verbally or physically threaten Birchfield or make any threatening gestures.

Birchfield told Brooks he was “fixing to go to jail for disorderly conduct” and called for backup. While waiting in his car, Birchfield told Brooks’s wife and daughter that Brooks would be arrested. When Officer William Spradling arrived, both officers knocked on Brooks’s front door.

Brooks ran out through a different door and moved quickly toward the officers, demanding to know why they were banging on his door (using profanity). The accounts then diverge sharply:

Brooks’s version: Spradling immediately grabbed Brooks’s arms and pulled them behind his back. Birchfield ran into Brooks, who raised his hands only to block the impact. Birchfield then yelled he would charge Brooks with assaulting an officer or resisting arrest.

Officers’ version: Brooks “shoved” Birchfield, and Spradling grabbed Brooks only after the shove. Brooks pulled free and “came at” Birchfield.

After this disputed stage, both officers pushed Brooks against his garage door, forced him to the ground (causing abrasions on his hands and knees), handcuffed him, and took him to Spradling’s squad car. Brooks complained of back and neck pain, so the officers called an ambulance.

What the Court Decided

The Fifth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part.

On the excessive force claim, the court reversed the grant of summary judgment. Under the summary judgment standard, the court was required to view the facts in Brooks’s favor. Under Brooks’s version, he made no threatening gestures, did not physically resist, and was grabbed, slammed against a garage door, and forced to the ground for what was at most a misdemeanor offense (disorderly conduct). Applying Graham v. Connor, all three factors weighed in Brooks’s favor: the crime was minor, Brooks posed no immediate threat, and he was not resisting. The force used was clearly excessive under this version of events, and the law was clearly established to that effect.

On the false arrest claim, the court affirmed qualified immunity. Mississippi’s disorderly conduct statute could arguably have applied to Brooks’s conduct—using profanity and telling an officer to leave in an aggressive manner. The officers had at least arguable probable cause, which was sufficient for qualified immunity.

On the First Amendment retaliation claim, the court analyzed whether Brooks’s speech (telling the officer to get off his property) was protected and whether the arrest was retaliatory.

Why This Case Matters for Your § 1983 Case

Excessive force and false arrest are analyzed separately. Even when an officer has arguable probable cause for an arrest (defeating the false arrest claim), the force used to execute that arrest may still be excessive. The two claims operate independently.

Minor crimes + no resistance = limited force. When the suspected offense is minor (like disorderly conduct), the suspect is not threatening the officers, and the suspect is not resisting, the Graham factors strongly favor the plaintiff. Slamming someone against a wall and forcing them to the ground in this context is likely excessive.

Whose version controls at summary judgment. The court must accept the plaintiff’s version of events when deciding summary judgment. If the plaintiff says he didn’t resist, and the officer says he did, the court assumes no resistance for purposes of the motion.

Profanity alone may not justify arrest. While the officers had “arguable” probable cause here, courts increasingly recognize that profanity directed at police officers is often protected speech. The line between disorderly conduct and protected expression is blurry.

Key Takeaway

When officers use significant physical force to arrest someone for a minor offense, and the suspect’s version of events shows no physical resistance or threatening behavior, the excessive force claim will likely survive summary judgment—even if the arrest itself was supported by arguable probable cause. Force and arrest are distinct constitutional inquiries, and excessive force in executing an otherwise lawful arrest remains a viable § 1983 claim.