The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Carter v. Dupuy (No. 25‑30213) recently examined a suit alleging a school resource officer used excessive force against a parent in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The incident arose after Louisiana’s Department of Children and Family Services instructed high school administrative staff not to release the parent’s daughter due to an ongoing child‑abuse investigation. When the parents arrived at the school, the mother became angry, used profanity, and refused to leave the office despite repeated instructions. Surveillance footage showed her gesturing angrily and refusing to comply. The school resource officer then physically guided her out of the office using brief, limited contact.
The trial court declined to dismiss the suit and the officer appealed. The appeals court held that the deputy’s physical contact with the mother—grasping her arm, pulling her a few inches, and briefly pushing her through a doorway—constituted only de minimis force, which is insufficient to establish a Fourth Amendment violation. The court emphasized that “a constitutional violation does not occur every time an officer touches someone,” and that minor, momentary force does not rise to the level of excessive force. Because the force used here was minimal and short‑lived, the court concluded that the parent could not overcome the officer’s immunity for actions taken within the course of his employment.
Considering the totality of the circumstances—including the child‑abuse investigation, the woman’s agitation, and her refusal to comply—the court held that no reasonable jury could find the force “clearly excessive” or “clearly unreasonable.” Because the court found no constitutional violation, it held that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity.
This conclusion also resolved the state‑law claims. Under Louisiana law, negligence, assault, and battery claims based on excessive force require a showing that the officer used more force than necessary. Since the force was de minimis and not excessive, the court concluded that the state‑law claims failed as a matter of law.
The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of summary judgment on both the federal and state claims. The court emphasized that allowing the case to proceed to trial would undermine the purpose of qualified immunity, which is to shield government officials from litigation when their conduct does not violate clearly established rights. The judgment was therefore reversed in full.
Don’t miss out on ED311 blog posts! Subscribe to the ED311 newsletter.