Flashlight Strikes on a Handcuffed Subject
Officers Diaz and Whitfield respond to a disorderly conduct call at a convenience store. They find Mr. Hayes, 34, yelling at the clerk and knocking items off a shelf. After a brief struggle, they handcuff Hayes and seat him on the curb. Hayes is breathing hard, has a small cut on his lip, and is no longer resisting. He spits toward Diaz, hitting Diaz's pant leg. Diaz, standing over Hayes, strikes him twice on the side of the head with a metal flashlight. Hayes slumps forward, dazed. Whitfield sees the strikes clearly. Hayes is handcuffed, has no weapon, and offers no resistance; the spit did not cause injury. Whitfield has not yet said anything. The store clerk is recording on her phone. Diaz says, 'You saw him spit; that's battery.' Whitfield must decide what to do immediately, what to report, and what legal standards apply.
1. Was Diaz's use of the flashlight objectively reasonable? Explain under Graham and Tennessee v. Garner.
Read the worked answer
No. Under Graham v. Connor, force is judged by objective reasonableness under the totality, including the severity of the crime, immediate threat, and resistance. Hayes was handcuffed, seated, and not resisting. Spitting is offensive and may be battery, but it did not create an immediate threat of serious harm. Two flashlight strikes to the head are impact weapon strikes to a vital area and carry a high risk of serious injury; they are disproportionate to a non-resisting, restrained subject. Tennessee v. Garner limits deadly force to an imminent threat of death or serious harm. The strikes are not justified as punishment.
2. What must Whitfield do in the immediate aftermath?
Read the worked answer
Whitfield must intervene if he can do so safely. That means verbally stopping Diaz, physically positioning between Diaz and Hayes if feasible, and taking control of the scene. Immediately request EMS, check Hayes's responsiveness, and render aid. Notify a supervisor, preserve the flashlight, activate and preserve body-camera footage, identify the clerk's video, and separate the officers to avoid coordinated statements. Whitfield should not help craft a cover story. Failure to intervene can violate the Fourth Amendment and department policy.
3. What should Whitfield write and say about the incident?
Read the worked answer
Whitfield's report should state what he saw, heard, and did in chronological order: the spit, the two strikes, Hayes's condition, the intervention, and medical aid. Use objective descriptions, not conclusions like 'Diaz lost control.' Quote statements exactly if possible. He should also provide a separate use-of-force and intervention statement and cooperate with the supervisory and internal review. Retaliation for reporting is unlawful; the report should be factual and complete, not speculative. If Diaz asks him to omit details, Whitfield should refuse and report the request.