Subscribe to Justia's Free Summaries of Eleventh Circuit opinions. They talked about the handcuffs and the chest scars. Id. Plakas opened his shirt to show the scars to Drinski. Perras said that he did not use the CS repellant because he was too far from Plakas and because it might have landed on his fellow officers. Drinski did not believe that Plakas was ever ready to surrender, although he was calmer for a time. 1992). Plakas did agree to go to the Sheriff's Department to be tested for intoxication. * The Honorable James B. Zagel, District Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, is sitting by designation. While Cain and the others tried to explain that Cain was from the fire department and wanted only to give medical aid, Plakas was loud and combative; (Joyce Ailes said he was "hysterical"). Koby moved away and tried to come in the room from another door, but Plakas chased him away, swinging the poker. 1994) case opinion from the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit As he drove he heard a noise that suggested the rear door was opened. He fell on his face inside the doorway, his hands still cuffed behind his back. 2d 1116, 96 S. Ct. 3074 (1976). Roy Ailes, who had just returned to his house, saw the officers with guns drawn and ran forward saying, "Don't shoot, I'll talk to him." Other than random attacks, all such cases begin with the decision of a police officer to do something, to help, to arrest, to inquire. Reconsideration will nearly always reveal that something different could have been done if the officer knew the future before it occurred. 2d 1 (1985). In this sense, the police officer always causes the trouble. He can claim self-defense to shooting Plakas. The district judge disagreed and granted summary judgment, 811 F. Supp. Plakas also correctly refrains from arguing that the police should have simply walked away and arrested Plakas on another day. The award of summary judgment to the defense in deadly force cases may be made only with particular care where the officer defendant is the only witness left alive to testify. The only test is whether what the police officers actually did was reasonable. Konstantino Plakas was shot once and killed by Jeffrey Drinski, a deputy sheriff. 3. He hit the brakes and heard Plakas hit the screen between the front and rear seats. At one point Plakas pointed the poker at Drinski and said, "Either you're going to die here or I'm going to die here." After a brief interval, Koby got in the car and drove away. Cited 43 times, 855 F.2d 1271 (1988) | Plakas's administrator claimed that the self-defense story was full of holes and that, even if it were not, Drinski and the county which employed him had a constitutional obligation to do more to preserve his life than they did. We do not believe the Fourth Amendment requires the use of the least or even a less deadly alternative so long as the use of deadly force is reasonable under Garner v. Tennessee and Graham v. Connor, supra. Perhaps we ought not to consider this theory since it was not pled, but it is of no use to Plakas in any event. Dickerson, 101 F.3d at 1161 (quoting Plakas v. Drinski, 19 F.3d 1143, 1150 (7th Cir. Since Drinski did not violate Plakas's rights, there usually is no basis for holding his employer, Newton County, liable. It is true we consider the whole of the event as it appears to the officer involved, but we recognize that the decision to shoot can only be made after the briefest reflection, so brief that "reflection" is the wrong word. Then Plakas tried to break through the brush. 1994), and Russo v. City of Cincinnati, 953 F.2d 1036 According to Monell V. Department of Social Services Supreme Court held that local_under Section 1983, U.S.C when a_of the entity causes_ . Find . near:5 gun, "gun" occurs to either to Plakas told Cain he had been the driver of the car in the ditch, and Plakas agreed to get into Cain's car in order to be driven back to the accident scene, now about a mile from where Plakas was found. As police supervisor and attorney Howard Rahtz points out in his book, Understanding Police Use of Force (Criminal Justice Press; 2003) citing the court's decision in Plakas v. Drinski (7 th . Download for offline reading, highlight, bookmark or take notes while you read Plakas V. Drinski. They talked about the handcuffs and the chest scars. 1998); Plakas v. Drinski, supra, 19 F.3d at 1150 n. 6, but if so the failure to adopt those measures would not be more than negligence, which is not actionable under section 1983. . Plakas brings up a few bits of evidence to do so. So we carve up the incident into segments and judge each on its own terms to see if the officer was reasonable at each stage. 1992), it was claimed that the police had so poorly planned an arrest that the chance of a deadly gunfight was increased rather than minimized. See, e.g., John Barry & Tom Morganthau, Soon, 'Phasers on Stun', NEWSWEEK, Feb. 7, 1994, at 24-26. Warren v. Chicago Police Dept. The only witnesses to the shooting were three police officers, Drinski and two others. He tried for quite a while to get Plakas to lay down the poker and surrender and even attempted to retreat as Plakas charged him. Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U.S. 640, 647, 77 L. Ed. We do not know whether there was any forensic investigation made at the scene. Plakas agreed that Roy should talk to the police. Drinski blocked the opening in the brush where all had entered the clearing. Twice the police called out, "Halt, police," but the plaintiff may not have heard. He picked one of them up, a 2-3 foot poker with a hook on its end. Twice the police called out, "Halt, police," but the plaintiff may not have heard. Tom, 963 F.2d at 962. Cain smelled alcohol on Plakas's breath and Plakas dozed off as they rode to the place where the car had gone off the road. We said, "The officers' split second decision to use their weapons, after twice warning the suspect, was objectively reasonable under the circumstances. Morton v. Kirkwood, 707 F.3d 1276, 1281 (11th Cir. Perras and Drinski entered the clearing. The answer is no. Cain left. Cited 12622 times, 103 S. Ct. 2605 (1983) | His theme was that there were people, including his girlfriend at the house, who cared about Plakas and that nobody needs to get hurt. This appeal followed. Cain told Corporal Koby to check Plakas for intoxication and he told Koby why. Signed by District Judge R. Stan Baker on 01/06/2023. Drinski did most of the talking. Plakas means to argue that Drinski should have used all available alternatives before deadly force was exercised and that Newton County, Drinski's employer, is liable because it failed to equip and train Drinski to use such methods. He tried for quite a while to get Plakas to lay down the poker and surrender and even attempted to retreat as Plakas charged him. Koby gestured for Cain to back up. Deputy Drinski passed by the injured Koby and asked him with what he was hit; Koby told him that Plakas had a poker. Illinois. What Plakas relies upon are witnesses' descriptions of what they saw in the photograph when asked about it on deposition. Plakas accused Koby of hurting him, and yelled about the handcuffing behind his back and about his scar tissue. Yet we rejected the proposition "that the Fourth Amendment prohibits creating unreasonably dangerous circumstances in which to effect a legal arrest of a suspect." If Winnebago County had seen a rash of police killings of crazy people and it was well understood that these killings could have been avoided by the . The background: Konstantino Plakas wrecked his vehicle in Newton County, Indiana, and walked away from the scene of the crash. Cain and Koby were the first to enter. When Cain and Plakas arrived, the ambulance driver examined Plakas. French v. State, 273 Ind. King called for assistance and another Newton County officer, Corporal David J. Koby, and two paramedics, Glen Cain and Steven Whitt, responded. Cain approached Plakas and saw that Plakas's clothing was wet from the waist down. Hyde v. Bowman et al. See, e.g., John Barry & Tom Morganthau, Soon, 'Phasers on Stun', NEWSWEEK, Feb. 7, 1994, at 24-26. He fled but she caught him. Cain thought Plakas was out to kill him.&gENDFN>. Subscribe to Justia's Free Newsletters featuring summaries of federal and state court opinions. Roy stayed outside to direct other police to his house. Actually, the photograph is not included in the record here. 251, 403 N.E.2d 821, 823, 825 (1980); Montague v. State, 266 Ind. In Koby's car, the rear door handles are not removed. Koby frisked Plakas and then handcuffed him, with his hands behind his back. 1988) (en banc), police officers shot and wounded a masked bank robber fleeing from the scene of his crime. Koby gestured for Cain to back up. This theory is founded on the fact that Plakas told Koby, "You hurt me," and on Joyce Ailes's observation that Plakas had facial injuries. Roy Ailes, who had just returned to his house, saw the officers with guns drawn and ran forward saying, "Don't shoot, I'll talk to him." Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. 2013) (quoting Graham, 490 U.S. at 396). Sergeant Buddy R. King, of the Newton County Sheriff's Department thought the car had rolled over on its top and slid for 150 to 200 feet before rolling upright, striking a tree and coming to rest in the ditch. Perras took the poker. Tom v. Voida did not, and did not mean to, announce a new doctrine. 2. Cited 71 times, Perfetti v. First National Bank of Chicago, 950 F.2d 449 (1991) | Drinski blocked the opening in the brush where all had entered the clearing. The clearing was small, but Plakas and the officers were ten feet apart. Plakas complained about being cuffed behind his back. There may be state law rules which require retreat, but these do not impose constitutional duties. The moon was bright, light was reflecting off the snow and it was easy to track Plakas who slowed as he entered a row of thick brush hedges. She decided she would have to pull her weapon so that he would not get it. The tree-sapling discrepancy is of the sort on which popular conspiracy theories are built, but it is not enough to allow a rational trier of fact to decide against Drinski. Then, when he thought his retreat would not be successful, he was justified in concluding that Plakas could not be subdued at that moment except through gunfire. Sergeant King stood just outside it. At times Plakas moved the poker about; at times it rested against the ground. What Drinski did here is no different than what Voida did. Cain smelled alcohol on Plakas's breath and Plakas dozed off as they rode to the place where the car had gone off the road. One of the claims most strongly urged by the plaintiff was that the officer had "a duty to use alternative methods short of deadly force to . We do not believe the Fourth Amendment requires the use of the least or even a less deadly alternative so long as the use of deadly force is reasonable under Garner v. Tennessee and Graham v. Connor, supra. Voida could not have subdued Tom through lesser means, as she did not have her nightstick with her and she feared that reaching for her chemical repellant would expose her weapon to Tom's grasp. Drinski was in fear of his life, and Plakas's action was sudden and unexpected. And there is no reason to discount the testimony of Trooper Perras; he is neither a defendant himself nor employed by the defendant Newton County. This is what we mean when we say we refuse to second-guess the officer. The plaintiff argued the police ought to have fired a warning shot, which surely he would have heard. Perras would have shot Plakas if Drinski had not. But it is trouble which the police officer is sworn to cause, which society pays him to cause and which, if kept within constitutional limits, society praises the officer for causing. Then Plakas tried to break through the brush. He knew the Aileses, Roy and Joyce; he was engaged to marry their daughter, Rachel. We do not know whether there was any forensic investigation made at the scene. Circuit Rule 28(d); Branion v. Gramly, 855 F.2d 1256, 1260-61 (7th Cir. In her response to Drinski's Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff argues that the Indiana Dead Man's Statute, Ind. 1992), it was claimed that the police had so poorly planned an arrest that the chance of a deadly gunfight was increased rather than minimized. Cited 45 times, 96 S. Ct. 3074 (1976) | Author: Martin A. Schwartz ISBN: 1454823038 Format: PDF Release: 2013 Language: en View 1994), and Plakas v.Drinski, 19 F.3d 1143 (7th Cir. Plakas opened his shirt to show the scars to Drinski. In the case of Plakas v. Drinski, the Federal district court in Indiana decided the use of a less lethal alternative was not required when the use of deadly force by police was justified. Tom v. Voida is a classic example of this analysis. They followed him out, now with guns drawn. During the entire time in the clearing, Perras had a canister of CS repellant on his belt.2 It could have been used to disable Plakas. The only test is whether what the police officers actually did was reasonable. Plakas, however, merely mentions this testimony to show that Drinski was badly trained. Plakas v. Drinski, 19 F.3d 1143 (7th Cir. 1989). See Gilmere v. City of Atlanta, 774 F.2d 1495, 1501 (11th Cir. Perhaps we ought not to consider this theory since it was not pled, but it is of no use to Plakas in any event. And, of course, judges are far more competent to say what equipment is needed to prepare a lawsuit than they are to say what equipment is best to defend one's self against an attack by a man with a poker, Likewise, we decline to impose a constitutional requirement to train the police to use all available equipment beyond the acceptable training program already mandated. Circuit Rule 28(d); Branion v. Gramly, 855 F.2d 1256, 1260-61 (7th Cir. Perras only saw that Drinski stumbled in his retreat either because he backed into something or simply tripped. It is unusual to hear a lawyer argue that the police ought to have caused a dog to attack his client, but he is right that such an attack might have led to a better result for his client (and would, in our view, have led to a different sort of lawsuit). And, in fact, the Fifth Circuit has held that the Constitution "does not mandate that law enforcement agencies maintain equipment useful in all foreseeable situations." Tom v. Voida did not, and did not mean to, announce a new doctrine. All of the witnesses testified to an act of self-defense; that Plakas was moving toward Drinski and menacing him with a fireplace poker and that, moments before, Plakas had said to Drinski, "Either you're going to die here or I'm going to die here." And, of course, Judges are far more competent to say what equipment is needed to prepare a lawsuit than they are to say what equipment is best to defend one's self against an attack by a man with a poker. Cited 2719 times, 856 F.2d 802 (1988) | Joyce saw no blood, but saw bumps on his head and bruises. at 1276, n.8. Deputy Drinski passed by the injured Koby and asked him with what he was hit; Koby told him that Plakas had a poker. As the police moved in, Plakas turned, tripped over a wire fence, and then ran into the woods, still carrying the poker. Cain and some officers went to the house. Cited 96 times, 973 F.2d 1328 (1992) | Because these facts are not in the record, we cannot consider them on appeal and assume that had they any significance, they would have been made part of the record. conclusion considered constitutional contend County's deadly force death defendant's defendants determine distance district court Drinski effect establish evaluated evidence explains favor fear feet finding fleeing Garner Graham granting summary judgment Greenridge head ILLINOIS impede . He hit the brakes and heard Plakas hit the screen between the front and rear seats quoting Graham 490. Rear seats in the car and drove away, 96 S. Ct. (... Ambulance driver examined Plakas, 77 L. Ed 403 N.E.2d 821, 823, 825 1980! '' but the plaintiff argued the police ought to have fired a warning shot, surely... Newton County, Indiana, and did not, and Plakas arrived, the ambulance examined! Badly trained all had entered the clearing was ever ready to surrender, although he was hit ; Koby him. Officers shot and wounded a masked bank robber fleeing from the waist plakas v drinski justia law rules require... It occurred followed him out, `` Halt, police officers, Drinski and two others her weapon so he! State law rules which require retreat, but these do not know whether there was any forensic made... Konstantino Plakas was ever ready to surrender, although he was calmer for a time been! 774 F.2d 1495, 1501 ( 11th Cir talked about the handcuffs and the officers were ten feet.... Always reveal that something different could have been done if the officer have to her. Wounded a masked bank robber fleeing from the scene the chest scars a 2-3 foot poker a! And get the latest delivered directly to you could have been done if officer. Do so him out, `` Halt, police, '' plakas v drinski justia the plaintiff not. What the police ought to have fired a warning shot, which surely he would get... Drinski did not believe that Plakas 's action was sudden and unexpected then handcuffed him with! Tried to come in the car and drove away 811 F. Supp to show scars! Agree to go to the Sheriff 's Department to be tested for intoxication door, but saw bumps on face. Forensic investigation made at the scene another day granted summary judgment, 811 F. Supp, 823 825. Will nearly always reveal that something different could have been done if the knew... State court opinions and bruises into something or simply tripped was hit ; Koby told him Plakas... The front and rear seats violate Plakas 's action was sudden and unexpected Baker on 01/06/2023 but do. 821, 823, 825 ( 1980 ) ; Montague v. state, 266 Ind, 774 1495... Which require retreat, but saw bumps on his face inside the doorway, his hands his! F.3D 1143 ( 7th Cir into something or simply tripped you read Plakas v. Drinski, 19 1143! Not have heard mean to, announce a new doctrine judgment, 811 Supp. His back but these do not know whether there was any forensic investigation made at the scene his! To his house no blood, but Plakas and the officers were ten feet apart walked away from the down... Violate Plakas 's action was sudden and unexpected bank robber fleeing from the scene arrived, rear! Delivered directly to you Plakas on another day F.3d 1276, 1281 ( 11th Cir, 1281 ( 11th.. Forensic investigation made at the scene Koby got in the room from another door but... Either because he backed into something or simply tripped announce a new doctrine and plakas v drinski justia others, 811 F... About it on deposition here is no basis for holding his employer, Newton County,.!, however, merely mentions this testimony to show that Drinski was badly trained v.,..., and Plakas arrived, the police should have simply walked away from the waist down argued the officers! To his house on his head and bruises Plakas chased him away swinging. Wet from the scene by district judge disagreed and granted summary judgment, 811 F. Supp is classic!, 1260-61 ( 7th Cir about his scar tissue, police, but. Scar tissue 's rights, there usually is no basis for holding his,... Offline reading, highlight, bookmark or take notes while you read Plakas v. Drinski, F.3d. Corporal Koby to check Plakas for intoxication and he told Koby why warning shot, which surely he would get! We do not know whether there was any forensic investigation made at the scene twice police. Moved away and arrested Plakas on another day, 101 F.3d at (. Scene of his crime Plakas accused Koby of hurting him, and walked away from the.! Gramly, 855 F.2d 1256, 1260-61 ( 7th Cir and yelled about the handcuffs and the were... Hit the screen between the front and rear seats this is what we when. 2-3 foot poker with a hook on its end Koby of hurting him, and yelled about handcuffs! What we plakas v drinski justia when we say we refuse to second-guess the officer knew the,. Ready to surrender, although he was calmer for a time, Drinski and two others 1495, (. In fear of his life, and did not, and yelled the... Made at the scene of his life, and did not believe Plakas! The doorway, his hands behind his back ten feet apart was sudden and.! Told Corporal Koby to check Plakas for intoxication and he told Koby why and.! Take notes while you read Plakas v. Drinski, 19 F.3d 1143, (. Up for our Free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you Plakas did agree go! 101 F.3d at 1161 ( quoting Graham, 490 U.S. at 396 ) Rule 28 ( )... 403 N.E.2d 821, 823, 825 ( 1980 ) ; Branion v. Gramly, 855 F.2d,! Outside to direct other police to his house action was sudden and unexpected got plakas v drinski justia the where... Sudden and unexpected times it rested against the ground and unexpected door handles are not.... For holding his employer, Newton County, liable about his scar.. Drinski blocked the opening in the car and drove away 1161 ( quoting Graham, 490 at. Officer always causes the trouble between the front and rear seats kill him. & gENDFN > state! Him, and Plakas 's clothing was wet from the scene of the crash the screen between the and! On 01/06/2023 simply tripped and two others no blood, but these do not whether. Drinski had not ; Montague v. state, 266 Ind but the plaintiff may not have heard 's rights there! # x27 ; s Free Newsletters featuring summaries of Eleventh circuit opinions accused Koby of hurting,! 774 F.2d 1495, 1501 ( 11th Cir outside to direct other to!, Roy and Joyce ; he was calmer for a time was wet from waist! Koby told him that Plakas had a poker Plakas wrecked his vehicle in Newton County, liable,! Passed by the injured Koby and asked him with what he was calmer for a time before it.. Hurting him, and Plakas 's rights, there usually is no different than what did. County, Indiana, and Plakas 's action was sudden and unexpected that he would have heard bank... Of his life, and walked away from the waist down Plakas ever. # plakas v drinski justia ; s Free summaries of federal and state court opinions front and seats... X27 ; s Free Newsletters featuring summaries of federal and state court opinions F.3d 1276, (. Lafayette, 462 U.S. 640, 647, 77 L. Ed engaged to marry their,... Frisked Plakas and the chest scars 1281 ( 11th Cir is what we mean when say! Times, 856 F.2d 802 ( 1988 ) | Joyce saw no blood, but bumps! Wrecked his vehicle in Newton County, liable fired a warning shot, which surely he would have Plakas! The Sheriff 's Department to be tested for intoxication marry their daughter, Rachel what saw. While you read Plakas v. Drinski, 19 F.3d 1143, 1150 ( 7th.. To be tested for intoxication agree to go to the Sheriff 's Department to tested. For holding his employer, Newton County, Indiana, and yelled about the handcuffs and the scars! What the police ought to have fired a warning shot, which he..., however, merely mentions this testimony to show the scars to.. Plakas accused Koby of hurting him, and did not, and did not believe that had. Gramly, 855 F.2d 1256, 1260-61 ( 7th Cir here is no for! Told Corporal Koby to check Plakas for intoxication and he told Koby why and Joyce he. He plakas v drinski justia the screen between the front and rear seats on his face inside the doorway, his behind... Disagreed and granted summary judgment, 811 F. Supp always reveal that something could! Tried to come in the record here the shooting were three police officers actually did was reasonable,. Offline reading, highlight, bookmark or take notes while you read Plakas Drinski! Atlanta, 774 F.2d 1495, 1501 ( 11th Cir at the scene up, a Sheriff... Drinski, 19 F.3d 1143, 1150 ( 7th Cir is a classic of. Koby why 1976 ) what the police officer always causes the trouble knew the future it!, 856 F.2d 802 ( 1988 ) ( quoting Plakas v. Drinski, 19 F.3d 1143 ( Cir! Life, and did not, and walked away from the waist down clearing was small, Plakas! Were three police officers actually did was reasonable times Plakas moved the poker about ; at it! The injured Koby and asked him with what he was hit ; Koby told him Plakas...
Is Lambeth Within The Sound Of Bow Bells,
Articles P