Priester v. City of Riviera Beach
208 F.3d 919 (11th Cir. 2000)
Holding
Police officers who ordered a K-9 to attack a compliant, non-threatening suspect who had surrendered with his hands up—and then stood by watching the dog maul him for two minutes—used excessive force and were not entitled to qualified immunity, even absent directly on-point case law, because the conduct was so obviously unconstitutional that no reasonable officer could believe it was permissible.
On February 22, 1994, Riviera Beach, Florida police officers responded to a burglar alarm at a store where about $20 worth of snacks had been stolen. Officer Wheeler and his 94-pound German Shepherd tracked a scent to a canal where Willie Priester was hiding. Priester voluntarily stood up, said nothing, and put his hands in the air. Wheeler ordered Priester to lie down, and Priester complied. Wheeler then ordered the dog to attack Priester anyway. When Priester kicked the dog to defend himself, Wheeler drew his gun, pointed it at Priester’s head, and threatened to kill him. Both officers stood and watched as the dog mauled Priester for what Sergeant Cushing admitted could have been as long as two minutes, inflicting fourteen puncture wounds on both legs.
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the jury’s verdict finding both officers liable for excessive force under § 1983. The court held that on these facts—a suspect who immediately surrendered, posed no threat, was not resisting or fleeing, and was suspected of stealing $20 worth of snacks—the force was so obviously excessive that no particularized prior case law was needed to clearly establish the violation. The court applied the narrow exception to qualified immunity: when conduct “lies so obviously at the very core of what the Fourth Amendment prohibits,” the officer cannot claim ignorance of the law even without a case directly on point.
Critically, the court also held Sergeant Cushing liable for failing to intervene. He stood on top of the canal with his flashlight, watched the entire attack, had voice contact with Wheeler, and did nothing to stop it. The court reaffirmed the clearly established duty of officers to intervene when they witness excessive force and have the ability to act. For pro se litigants, this case is powerful authority for three key principles: (1) using a police dog on a compliant suspect is excessive force, (2) qualified immunity fails when the violation is obvious, and (3) bystander officers who fail to intervene are equally liable.