Taking “get off my lawn” to the extreme, the cops were called and Fort Worth officer William Martin responded. It got worse from there.

The initial 9-1-1 call came from a middle-aged male, stating that several people were on his property arguing, had refused to leave, and were intentionally throwing trash in his yard. A
subsequent 9-1-1 call came from the man’s neighbor Jacqueline Craig, complaining that the man had grabbed her son by the neck because the boy had allegedly littered.

Like most mothers, Craig was less than thrilled at the guy grabbing her son, and then she jumped into the fray.

Martin responded to the call alone. He activated his body camera as soon as he arrived at the scene. One of Craig’s daughters, Brea Hymond, also recorded the event on her cell phone. Martin first spoke with the male complainant; Martin then approached Craig to obtain her version of the events. Craig told Martin that the man had grabbed her son, A.C., after A.C. had allegedly littered. In response, Martin asked: “Why don’t you teach your son not to litter?” Craig, visibly agitated, told Martin that it did not matter whether her son had littered; the man did not have the right to put his hands on her son. Martin replied: “Why not?”

Martin could have de-escalated the situation. Instead, he decided to inflame Craig.

Craig started to shout at Martin after this provocation. Martin asked why she was shouting at him, to which Craig responded: “Because you just pissed me off telling me what I teach my kids and what I don’t.” Martin replied in a calm voice: “If you keep yelling at me, you’re going to piss me off, and I’m going to take you to jail.”

To no one’s surprise, Craig did not stop and Martin got pissed off. During the subsequent arrests of Craig and her children, including her daughter Brea Hymond, came to her mother’s defense, there was more screaming, some pushing and a chaotic atmosphere, to which Martin contributed. After Craig, Martin decided to arrest Hymod as well.

Martin next went to arrest Hymond, who had been verbally harassing him throughout his arrests of Craig and J.H. Martin grabbed Hymond by the wrist, put her up against the side of the police vehicle, and attempted to wrangle her cell phone out of her hands. He handcuffed her and then put her up against the vehicle a second time. Hymond refused to respond to Martin’s questions about her name and age, so Martin raised her handcuffed arms behind her back in an attempt to obtain compliance. Hymond claims this maneuver caused “[e]xcruciating pain”; however, the video shows that the maneuver had little to any effect on Hymond. She continued to yell at Martin as he raised her arms and immediately after he lowered them. Martin then escorted Hymond into a second police vehicle that had just arrived at the scene.

Craig and her children sued Martin for excessive force, and the district court denied qualified immunity. Martin appealed to the Fifth Circuit. While there were numerous claims of excessive force, the claim by Hymond presents a significant issue. She was cuffed, but refused to give her name and age. So Martin decided to use a bit of a “pain compliance “technique.

Hymond refused to respond to Martin’s questions about her name and age, so Martin raised her handcuffed arms behind her back in an attempt to obtain compliance. Hymond claims this maneuver caused “[e]xcruciating pain”; however, the video shows that the maneuver had little to any effect on Hymond. She continued to yell at Martin as he raised her arms and immediately after he lowered them. Martin then escorted Hymond into a second police vehicle that had just arrived at the scene.

This was all caught on the officer’s camera, and wasn’t in dispute. While Hymond was no doubt persisting in “pissing off” Martin, she was in custody and used no force against the officer. Raising her cuffed arms behind her back was done solely to inflict pain in order to get her to give up her name and age. The circuit, by Chief Judge Priscilla Owen, held this was no big deal.

Nor did Martin violate Hymond’s Fourth Amendment rights. Hymond was shouting at Martin throughout the entire confrontation. She did not comply with any of Martin’s commands or instructions. Only after Hymond refused to provide Martin with her name did Martin employ any force against her. Martin’s use of force—lifting Hymond’s handcuffed arms behind her back—was relatively minimal. Hymond continued to verbally deride Martin while Martin was lifting her arms and immediately after he put her arms down. Given Hymond’s continued resistance, Martin’s use of force against Hymond was not objectively unreasonable.

There’s no question that Hymond was in custody. There’s no question that Martin used force, which C.J. Owen characterized as “relatively minimal,” although Hymond alleged that it was “excruciating.” After noting, yet again, that Hymond “verbally derided” Martin, as if that has any bearing on Martin’s justification to use force, the court held it was “not objectively reasonable.”

In other words, piss a cop off in the Fifth Circuit and expect a little pain.

Whether or not the pain was minimal or excruciating is a matter for a jury to decide, not Judge Owen, who might not have enjoyed the experience Martin provided Hymond and isn’t in a position to reach such a factual finding. More importantly, the court held that Martin’s use of pain as a compliance technique to get Hymond to tell him what he wanted is a throwback to the old rubber hose days. While such pedigree information is not incriminatory, a police officer does not get to inflict pain to compel a person in custody to answer his questions. Except in the Fifth Circuit.