Kingsley V. Hendrickson Case Study

High profile police incidents obtain an enormous amount of attention in today’s world. This attention is greatly presented to society through means of the media. Whether the media portrays police incidents strictly on a local level or broadly through national media, the media often portrays the case to the audience in a biased way. The bias of the media greatly impacts not only how the community views the case, but also how juries and judges evaluate the case. Frequently, these cases end with case law and policy change, particularly when they are appealed to the Supreme Court. Although the Kingsley v. Hendrickson case did not gain much media attention, it did result in policy change as it was brought to the Supreme Court, in which the decision was made a precedent for all future cases.

Michael Kingsley was being held as a pretrial detainee in Monroe County Jail in Wisconsin in May of 2010. He was commanded by Sergeant Stan Hendrickson to remove a paper covering

the light above his cell bed, however Kingsley refused to take it off. After numerous denials to Sergeant Stan Hendrickson, the jail administer, Lieutenant Robert Conroy, ordered the officers to take the paper down and transfer Kingsley to another cell. During the move, the accused refused to move through the jail as directed, falling to his feet. The jail staff pulled Kingsley to his feet. However, as they did this, Kingsley’s feet hit the bedframe causing a lot of pain making him unable to walk or stand. As the officers attempted to remove the handcuffs when they reached the new cell, Kingsley again resisted presentedofficers’ actions to take them off. Hendrickson placed his knee into Kingsley’s back and yelled at him. Kingsly claimed that Hendrickson and Deputy Sheriff Fritz Degner also smashed his head into a concrete bunk – an accusation that the officers deny. After additional verbal exchange, Hendrickson directed Degner to utilize a Taser to Kingsley’s back. The Taser was applied to his back for five seconds and then the officers left the handcuffs on, later returning after 15 minutes to remove the handcuffs.
Following this incident, Kingsley sued Hendrickson and the other jail staff and officers claiming that their actions violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. Hendrickson and the other staff were not found guilty by the jury. Upset with the decision, Kingsley appealed and claimed that the jury was incorrectly instructed on the standards for judging police force and reasonableness. The decision was reversed by the Seventh Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals.
The United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of Kingsley, stating that the requirements of excessive force are met by showing that the officers deliberately used force and that the use of force is objectively unreasonable. Justice Stephen Breyer delivered the opinion of the court in a 5-4 ruling. The Court held that plaintiff is not required to prove unnecessary force was used, instead that use of force was unnecessary based on an objective standard. Consequently, the Court ruled that he objective standard is in accordance with existing precedent that hold that due process protects pretrial detainees from excessive force that results to punishment. This can also be revealed through evidence that verifies that the brutality was not reasonably related to the valid purpose of holding pretrial detainees. The objective standard safeguards officers who act with honest intentions by taking into consideration the situation at the current time. Moreover, the Supreme Court stated that use of force in question must be intentional in order for it to be considered excessive force.
Recently, police misconduct has been gaining more attention from citizens and pulling citizens away from supporting police departments.

Whether these interpretations of police incident are accurate or not, the media has been the main source of projecting their side of the event. As Kingsley v. Hendrickson was being presented to the various levels of courts, the media found it difficult to predict the outcome. The little percentage of media that portrayed the case, argued against the officers, in which the officers did use unnecessary police force. They supported Kingsley, refusing to give into police misconduct. The public, outraged, reasoned that the officers must be held to an objective standard when determining if police force is reasonable or unreasonable. Kingsley v. Hendrickson gained the most attention after the case had been decided because the public was overjoyed with the outcome. As presented, the Court ruled in favor of Kingsley, ruling that police intended to use excessive force

unreasonably.
Kingsley v. Hendrickson greatly impacted the policing on a local and national level. It is significant because showed that officers are held to an objective standard regarding use of force and brutality. Officers across the nation, in large and small prisons, cannot abuse their power and treat the accused or offenders as inferior. Since this case was brought to the Supreme Court, the opinion of the court becomes a precedent for all courts across the country. The ruling affects all trials now and is a standard that officers have an objective criterion to relate officer use of force against. In the process of the case, there is nothing that could have been done differently. The Supreme Court ruled as the United States Constitution suggested. This case will continue to have a lifelong effect on the rights of pretrial detainees.
High profile incidents gain a vast amount of attention in the modern world due to the media presenting these incidents. When the media presents these cases, they are often produced in a biased way to the audience. This impacts the way the viewers, listeners, and the public in general examine the case. Furthermore, it distracts the juries and judges in making an unbiased decision. Often, these cases end with case law and policy change, especially if the case is appealed to the Supreme Court. The case Kingsley v. Hendrickson is a superb example of this, as it resulted in policy change, as officers are now held to an objective standard regarding use of force and brutality. Although Kingsley v. Hendrickson did not gain much media attention prior to the decision, it gained attention after the decision as it aids in the termination of police misconduct.