 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Bradley9/28/2000
Oral Argument Date: 05/16/2000
We determine in this case the proper test for use of force by a person in self-defense to the actions of a correctional officer. Because we believe the circumstances of individuals using force in self-defense against correctional officers are analogous to the situation of persons resisting arrest, we hold a person may claim self-defense and use force to resist only when that person is in actual, imminent danger of serious injury . We affirm Alonzo Bradley's conviction for custodial assault pursuant to RCW 9A.36.100(1)(b).
ISSUE
When a person claims to be using force in self-defense to the actions of a correctional officer, must the person show he or she was in actual, imminent danger of serious injury , or is it sufficient to show only that he or she reasonably believed harm was imminent to establish self-defense?
FACTS
On May 15, 1997, Alonzo Bradley was detained at the King County Jail for probation violations on felony drug charges, assault in the second degree, investigation of assault, failing to appear on a resisting arrest charge, and telephone harassment. His criminal history included convictions for possession and possession with intent to deliver controlled substances, and assault in the second degree with a deadly weapon. At approximately 10:30 p.m. that evening at shift change for the jail, Bradley complained to Correctional Officer Glenn Redman of stomach pains and requested to see a nurse. Redman let Bradley out of his cell, and Bradley went to sit on nearby stairs. Bradley did not appear to Redman to be in immediate need of medical assistance, so he asked Bradley to return to his cell. He told Bradley he would summon a nurse at the end of the shift change period. Bradley refused repeated requests to return to his cell, even after at least two other correctional officers arrived to urge him to do so. Bradley testified he was physically unable to stand and walk back to his cell. 3 Report of Proceedings at 43 ('I said I can't. My legs -- at that time I lost all motor skills in my legs.').
Finally, the supervisor, Sergeant Kim Snodgrass, arrived. As supervisor, Sgt. Snodgrass is the only correctional officer authorized to carry pepper spray. He testified pepper spray, a benign form of mace, causes extreme discomfort, but not permanent injury . He testified: 'You wouldn't use pepper spray unless everything else fails. It is part of the . . . continuum of force up the ladder from your presence {presence being the first step in the force continuum}. So, basically, yes, if talking with the inmate doesn't work for you, can't control the inmate or get them restrained, the next force would probably be pepper/mace.' 2 Report of Proceedings at 128.
Sergeant Snodgrass assumed control of the scene and asked Bradley three times to return to his cell. Bradley continued to refuse. He also asked Bradley to stand up so Snodgrass could handcuff him. Bradley refused to stand. Snodgrass again threatened him with use of pepper spray, telling him what would happen if it got into his eyes. Bradley still refused to stand to be handcuffed or to go back to his cell.
Snodgrass then sprayed Bradley directly in the face with the pepper spray. Bradley sat up but did not otherwise react to the foaming spray. Allegedly in order to make the pepper spray work faster, Snodgrass testified he used his thumb to rub the spray into Bradley's eye. Snodgrass indicated Bradley then took a swing at him and bit his wrist, whereupon the other officers joined the fray, wrestled Bradley to the ground, and cuffed his hands behind his back, terminating his resistance.
Bradley told a very different ve
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|