Man sues, says car was flipped in PIT maneuver by GA officer. What are rules on the tactic?

Reality Check is a Telegraph series digging deeper into key issues and focusing on accountability. Have a suggestion for a future story? Email mynews@macon.com.

A man suing officials from the Lamar County Sheriff’s Office alleges deputies pit maneuvered him and let a law enforcement dog loose on him during an attempted traffic stop, but the sheriff’s office maintains that what happened in the incident was misconstrued.

Antonio Risco, the man who filed the lawsuit, accused Sgt. Michael Brayton and Sgt. Anthony Thompson of using excessive force against him. Risco was failing to stay in his lane while driving northbound on I-75, so Brayton believed Risco was using his phone and tried to pull him over, according to the lawsuit.

Risco said in his lawsuit against Brayton, Thompson and Sheriff Brad White that he turned on his hazard lights to acknowledge the deputies, but 45 seconds later, Brayton began yelling obscenities through the patrol car window and instructed Risco to pull over. Risco yelled back that he would pull over at the next exit. The lawsuit emphasized that there were no threats to pedestrians or motorists as the interstate was empty, and Risco could control his vehicle.

The deputies then hit Risco’s vehicle to stop him in what’s commonly referred to as a “PIT manuever,” according to the lawsuit. As a result, his car rolled over and crashed on the side of the road. The deputies did the pit manuever less than three minutes after activating their emergency lights, the lawsuit said. Smoke was irradiating from the engine.

After Brayton performed the PIT maneuver, the lawsuit said he approached Risco’s car and told him to crawl out and lay on the ground. But Brayton then pulled Risco out and “slammed him onto the pavement,” where he was tasered and hit by batons.

During this time, Thompson released his K-9 from the patrol car to attack Risco for several minutes. Risco defended himself from the attack but was told by Thompson to stop fighting the dog, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit also indicated that the beatings from the deputies against Risco continued, even after he was handcuffed.

The lawsuit said this incident caused Risco to suffer injuries and to be deprived on Constitutional rights. The lawsuit alleged he suffered pain and emotional distress. He needed medical and psychological treatment for PTSD stemming from the incident.

The lawsuit alleges the deputies acted “willfully, maliciously, in bad faith and reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s federally protected constitutional rights.”

The suit accused Brayton of having “shocking and willful indifference” to Risco’s rights, and having “conscious awareness” that he would severely injure Risco.

As for White, the lawsuit argued that he failed to investigate the incident which exonerated the deputies from misconduct since they had not been disciplined or terminated and, in turn, approved of the conduct. The lawsuit also argued that the sheriff’s office didn’t have a proper PIT maneuver policy in place at the time of this incident.

Risco is seeking to be paid damages as the result of the physical injuries he suffered, the distress and the costs of treatment. He’s also seeking to be paid back for attorneys’ fees. He has asked a court to grant him a jury trial.

Pursuit ended with charges

White told The Telegraph that Risco was criminally charged with fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer as well as obstructing law enforcement, which he pleaded guilty to on July 7, 2022.

White also said a viral video of the incident surfaced on YouTube after the chase, and said what happened that day was “heavily misconstrued.” White said he hadn’t been notified of the lawsuit yet when contacted Tuesday, but denied the allegations. Legal rep

White confirmed Brayton still works for the Lamar County Sheriff’s Office. Thompson has since moved to the Monroe County Sheriff’s Department.

Does Lamar County, GA have a PIT maneuver policy?

White’s office has a “vehicle pursuit action” policy that dictates how officers should behave when deciding to start a car chase. The policy was provided to The Telegraph, and records show it was revised earlier this month.

Officers are tasked with the responsibility of deciding whether a suspect should be chased, but it is only justified when the officer has reasonable grounds to believe the perpetrator will threaten the public or the officer, has committed a serious felony or needs to be apprehended for crucial reasons that outweigh the level of danger created by the pursuit.

Chases can only be done with a supervisor present, according to the policy.

The policy references a mandate from the U.S. Supreme Court that advises officers and local government if they aren’t trained on it and they execute it incorrectly they could be liable. It would reflect a “deliberate indifference” to their constitutional rights, the policy said.

The policy said hitting a suspect’s car with a cruiser to stop the chase can be considered “deadly force” and is subject to “reasonable requirement” under the Fourth Amendment.

Under the policy, PIT maneuvers can be used if the officer in the pursuit determines that the fleeing vehicle must be stopped immediately to safeguard life and preserve public safety. It can only be used based on the training and should not be used until other methods of stopping a fleeing vehicle have been considered and determined to not be feasible, the policy stated.

“The PIT maneuver should be used only when danger from the continued pursuit if greater than the danger associated with the using the maneuver to end the pursuit,” the policy states.

The condition of the road, visibility, traffic volume, pedestrian traffic, type of fleeing vehicle, occupants and reasonable speed must be considered before pursuing the maneuver, according to the policy.

Like the chase policy, the PIT maneuver is a use of force and the officer’s actions must be reasonable.