GENE RAYMOND BELL, JR. v. CITY OF SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN, ANTHONIE KORKIS, ARTHUR BRIDGEFORTH, and THOMAS LANGEWICZ, II, jointly and severally and in their individual capacities - Articles

All Content

GENE RAYMOND BELL, JR. v. CITY OF SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN, ANTHONIE KORKIS, ARTHUR BRIDGEFORTH, and THOMAS LANGEWICZ, II, jointly and severally and in their individual capacities

Posted by: Stacey Shrader Joslin on Jun 14, 2022

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Kali M. L. Henderson, SEWARD HENDERSON PLLC, Royal Oak, Michigan, for Appellants.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Ben M. Gonek, BEN GONEK LAW, P.C., Southgate, Michigan, for Appellee.

Attorneys 3: BRIEF: Kali M. L. Henderson, T. Joseph Seward, SEWARD HENDERSON PLLC, Royal Oak, Michigan, for Appellants.

Attorneys 4: BRIEF: Ben M. Gonek, BEN GONEK LAW, P.C., Southgate, Michigan, for Appellee.

Judge(s): WHITE, THAPAR, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit

THAPAR, Circuit Judge. When Gene Bell was pulled over, the police officer asked for his license, registration, and insurance, as officers commonly do. But Bell refused. Instead, he demanded to know why the officer had pulled him over. Yet the officer wanted Bell’s information first. After a tense stand-off, officers pulled Bell out of his vehicle, wrestled him to the ground, and tased him. Bell contends that the officers violated the Fourth Amendment’s bar against excessive force. The district court denied the officers qualified immunity, and they appealed. We dismiss in part, reverse in part, and remand.

Attachments: