JOSEPH H. WEIL, APPELLANT,
v.
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appellate court affirmed a summary judgment against a plaintiff suing a city for false arrest, false imprisonment, and assault and battery. The court found no genuine issues of material fact regarding the city's liability or the officers' use of force.
No, there were no genuine issues of material fact. The court found the city liable for the officers' conduct and that the alleged actions did not necessarily constitute excessive force, given the leeway afforded to officers in making on-the-spot decisions.
“Police officers, in enforcing the law, are called upon to exercise a degree of judgment in situations that demand on-the-spot decisions and under such circumstances, are accorded a greater leeway than an ordinary citizen in the exercise of that judgment in determining the necessity for, and amount of, force required under particular situations to effect an arrest and to retain in custody an alleged violator.”
This quote explains the legal standard for assessing the use of force by police officers.
The plaintiff sued the City of Miami Beach for damages related to an alleged false arrest, false imprisonment, and assault and battery by city police …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Assault And Battery cases and more on FLexlaw
This was an action to recover damages from a municipality for an alleged false arrest, false imprisonment, and assault and battery by police officers of the municipality. The trial judge rendered the summary judgment against appellant from which this appeal was prosecuted.
The appellant contends first that the summary judgment was erroneous because there existed questions of fact as to the liability of the city for the conduct and actions of its police officers, and second, there was an issue as to whether or not excessive force was exercised by the police officers in effecting the arrest and detention of the appellant.
We conclude the first contention is without merit. As to the second, we observe that if the conduct as contended for by the appellant were proven, it would not necessarily establish a case of an excessive use of force. Police officers, in enforcing the law, are called upon to exercise a degree of judgment in situations that demand on-the-spot decisions and under such circumstances, are accorded a greater leeway than an ordinary citizen in the exercise of that judgment in determining the necessity for, and amount of, force required under particular situations to effect an arrest and to *799retain in custody an alleged violator. See Radtke v. Loud, Fla.App.1957, 98 So.2d 891; cf. City of Miami v. Albro, Fla.App.1960, 120 So.2d 23.
The summary judgment appealed should be and is hereby affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Chastain v. Civil Serv. Bd. OF Orlando, 327 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)…nly later, after a second review, to the determination that there had been a violation. Allowing however for the recognized leeway accorded law enforcement officers in the exercise of judgment in situations of this type, Weil v. City of Miami Beach, 158 So. 2d 798 (3rd DCA Fla.1963), the record here contains a basis upon, which the Civil Service Board could reach the conclusion that the charge was sustained. That being so, neither the circuit court in its appellate capacity nor this court should reweigh the c…
-
Sanchez v. Buchanan, 175 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)…tial reason to believe the plaintiff was committing a misdemeanor. If substantial reason exists the courts cannot second guess the officer in the performance of his duty. * * * ” 120 So. 2d at 26. See also Weil v. City of Miami Beach, Fla.App. 1963, 158 So. 2d 798. Having reached the decision that no actionable tort was shown, we affirm and do not reach the questions of lack of notice and immunity from suit. Affirmed.…
-
Gus Dallas v. The City OF Daytona Beach, 275 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)…ideration, and appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court hereby appealed is affirmed. 5 Am.Jur.2d 159, Appeal and Error, § 713; 2 Fla.Jur. 670, Appeals, § 313; Weil v. City of Miami Beach (Fla.App.1963) 158 So. 2d 798. SPECTOR, C. J., and WIGGINTON and CARROLL, DONALD K., JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- City OF Miami v. Albro, 120 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)
- Lewis v. Harper, 120 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)
- Radtke v. Anne L. Loud, 98 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 3d DCA 1957)
- Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n v. Dade Cnty., 98 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 3d DCA 1957)