No Immunity For Cops Who Handcuffed A 10-Year-Old Girl Because She Drew Some ‘Violent’ Pictures

Putting cops in schools is never a good idea. The most likely result of bringing a cop indoors to police schools is that the officer(s) will, indeed, “police” the school. Things that used to be handled with detention, meetings with parents, or suspensions instead become “incidents” where officers will do the worst thing they can in these situations: act like cops.

Fortunately in this case (albeit after a very unfortunate incident), the Ninth Circuit Appeals Court has dismissed these officers’ attempt to be immunized for treating a normal school disciplinary problem like a felony arrest. (h/t Law & Crime)

It only takes five pages for the Ninth Circuit to deny immunity [PDF] to these officers. Many of the facts of the case are not discussed here, as the court only needs to focus on one thing: is it “reasonable” to handcuff a 10-year-old child because they allegedly made a few drawings others found disturbing?

The allegations in the complaint (and recounted in the order that led to this appeal by the Honolulu PD officers) are these: the student drew a picture that depicted a girl holding a “cartoon firearm” pointed at someone else whose head was on the ground. Below the picture were words “addressing” it to two other students. The court handling the case noted there were questions about chain of custody in terms of the drawing as well as unsettled questions about who else had contributed to the picture that triggered this arrest.

What’s more clear is what the cops did. Three (THREE!) officers showed up to address this drawing: Christine Neves, Corey Perez, and Warren Ford. The student who made the drawing was separated from her mother (who had been contacted by the school prior to the call to the cops) and prevented from talking to her or being present while her daughter was questioned by police officers. The officers (after talking to school administrators) arrested the student for “terroristic threatening,” cuffed her, and took her to the Pearl City police station.

The Ninth Circuit says there’s nothing that can be salvaged here. The officers want an early exit but clearly established case law says they can’t be. While it does grant immunity on the false arrest claim (stating that there was probable cause to detain the student), it does not give them a free pass on the handcuffing of the 10-year-old. That’s excessive force, says the Ninth.

In C.B. v. City of Sonora, we held that the “use of handcuffs on a calm, compliant, but non-responsive 11-year-old child was unreasonable.” We also determined that the “decision to leave [the child] in handcuffs for the duration of [a] half-hour commute to his uncle’s business—a commute that took place in a vehicle equipped with safety locks that made escape impossible—was clearly unreasonable.” Following Sonora, no reasonable official could have believed that the level of force employed against ten-year-old N.B. as alleged in Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint—namely, placing her in adult handcuffs to transport her to the police station—was necessary. Like the eleven-year-old child in Sonora, N.B. was calm and compliant, was questioned in a secluded office surrounded by adults, and did not resist arrest or attempt to flee.

Even if the so-called “arrest” was (sort of) justifiable (it really isn’t), the rest of what the cops did wasn’t. There were three police officers and only one 10-year-old girl. Cuffs definitely weren’t necessary. And while it’s arguable the arrest wasn’t necessary either, that argument is closed by the Ninth’s ruling which said it was, but everything that followed it wasn’t.

One assumes it’s settlement time for the city. It’s highly unlikely a jury is going to buy into the usual “our word against yours” assertions when it’s three cops vs. a little girl. And if you’re the sort of cop who thinks you’re only safe if the 10-year-old in the back of a locked cruiser is also handcuffed, you’re definitely in the wrong business. Maybe go see if Bath & Body Works is hiring.