Stainback v. Dixon

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that an arresting officer may not knowingly use handcuffs in a way that will inflict unnecessary pain or injury
• holding that “an officer may not knowingly use handcuffs in a way that will inflict unnecessary pain or injury on an individual who presents little or no risk of flight or threat of injury”
• holding that officers did not use excessive force in forcibly handcuffing a suspect who had complied with the officers’ requests to turn around and face a wall, but not with an order to put his hands behind his back
• recognizing that by 2002 it was well established that “an officer may not knowingly use handcuffs in a way that will inflict unnecessary pain or injury on an individual who presents little or no risk of flight or threat of injury”
• holding that officers did not use excessive force in handcuffing a suspect, even though the suspect “said that he did not want to be handcuffed because he thought it would hurt” and “complained generally about pain after he was handcuffed”
• recognizing that by 2002 it was well established that “an officer may not knowingly use handcuffs in a way that will inflict unnecessary pain or injury on an individual who presents little or no risk of flight or threat of injury”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).