Isaiah Taylor v. Justin Schwarzhuber, No. 23-3151, 3/17/25
In a rare win, Taylor will have another chance to prove that MPD officers violated his rights when they seized him while he was out delivering a Christmas turkey to a friend.
This case stems from a disputed police interaction in 2015, when Tayl0r–then 16–“ran through his Milwaukee neighborhood to deliver a holiday turkey to neighbors.” (p.1). Two officers spotted Taylor and, based in large part on their belief that this was “high crime area,” seized him, patted him down, and briefly detained him in a squad car. (p.3-5). Taylor eventually sued the officers, alleging a medley of constitutional violations. (p. 5). The district court allowed only one of those claims–as to whether Taylor’s continued detention following the dissipation of reasonable suspicion violated clearly established law–to reach the jury. (p. 6). The jury then found in favor of the MPD officers. (Id.).
On appeal, the Seventh Circuit concludes that the district court was wrong to grant qualified immunity to the officers with respect to two aspects of the encounter–the stop and the frisk. In its view, “clearly established law bars the type of stop and frisk conducted here.” (p. 8).
The Stop
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Taylor, there were three pieces of evidence supporting this seizure: “Taylor was (1) running (2) with a bag (3) in a high crime area.” (p. 9). The Court identifies at least two cases standing for the proposition that “moving through space with an unidentified object” does not create reasonable suspicion. (p. 10-11). Citing a long line of precedent, the Court also concludes that “clearly established law holds that police officers cannot stop people going about their business just because they happen to be in a high-crime area.” (p. 12). These cases should have put the officers on “notice that they cannot stop someone just because he matches the general description of a suspect in a high-crime area.” (Id.).
The Frisk
Again, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Taylor, there was nothing in these facts to “suggest that Taylor was armed and dangerous.” (p. 13). Just because he happened to be in an area that the officers were patrolling is not a sufficient basis to conduct such a search. (Id.).
Accordingly, with respect to this portion of his claim, the Court remands for a new trial.
