The Supreme Court ordered an appeals court to take another look at a ruling in favor of police officers accused of using excessive force in pressing on the back of a man who was facedown on the ground, suffocating him.<\/p>\n
The case started when police officers in St. Louis arrested Nicholas Gilbert, a 27-year-old homeless man, for trespassing in a condemned building and failing to appear in court for a traffic ticket. They brought him to a holding cell in a police station. Later, responding to an apparent suicide attempt, officers handcuffed and shackled Mr. Gilbert.<\/p>\n
\u201cThree officers held Gilbert\u2019s limbs down at the shoulders, biceps and legs,\u201d the Supreme Court\u2019s unsigned opinion said. \u201cAt least one other placed pressure on Gilbert\u2019s back and torso. Gilbert tried to raise his chest, saying, \u2018It hurts. Stop.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n
After 15 minutes of struggling, Mr. Gilbert\u2019s breathing became abnormal. \u201cThe officers rolled Gilbert onto his side and then his back to check for a pulse,\u201d the opinion said. \u201cFinding none, they performed chest compressions and rescue breathing. An ambulance eventually transported Gilbert to the hospital, where he was pronounced dead.\u201d<\/p>\n
Mr. Gilbert\u2019s parents sued, losing in the federal appeals court in St. Louis, which ruled that the officers had not used unconstitutionally excessive force.<\/p>\n
The Supreme Court said the appeals court may not have taken account of all of the relevant evidence.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt is unclear whether the court thought the use of a prone restraint \u2014 no matter the kind, intensity, duration or surrounding circumstances \u2014 is per se constitutional so long as an individual appears to resist officers\u2019 efforts to subdue him,\u201d the Supreme Court\u2019s opinion said, returning the case to the appeals court to give it \u201cthe opportunity to employ an inquiry that clearly attends to the facts and circumstances.\u201d<\/p>\n
In dissent, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch, said the Supreme Court had chosen the worst of the three available options. It should have, Justice Alito wrote, either denied review or agreed to hear and decide the case itself.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe court, unfortunately, is unwilling to face up to the choice between denying the petition (and bearing the criticism that would inevitably elicit) and granting plenary review (and doing the work that would entail),\u201d Justice Alito wrote.<\/p>\n