9th Circuit Rejects Qualified Immunity for Honolulu Cops Who Handcuffed 10-Year-Old Girl
Officers should have known that handcuffing a compliant 10-year-old is unnecessary, the court ruled.

A federal appeals court ruled that three Honolulu police officers are not immune from a lawsuit filed on behalf of a 10-year-old girl who was handcuffed and arrested at school for allegedly drawing an offensive and violent picture of another student.
In an unpublished opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity, a judicial doctrine that shields government officials from civil suits in cases where the rights they allegedly violated were not clearly established by prior case law. The doctrine protects a wide variety of abusive officials from legal consequences and makes it harder for victims to hold them accountable.
Citing previous rulings holding that handcuffing a complaint child surrounded by adults constituted excessive force, the 9th Circuit wrote, "no reasonable official could have believed that the level of force employed against ten-year-old N.B. as alleged in Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint—namely, placing her in adult handcuffs to transport her to the police station—was necessary."
In 2020, school officials at Honowai Elementary called Tamara Taylor, the mother of the 10-year-old girl, who is identified as N.B. in the lawsuit, because another parent demanded that the school report her daughter to the police. N.B. had allegedly participated in drawing an offensive sketch of a student in response to that student bullying her.
Reason reported in 2021:
After she arrived at the elementary school, Taylor says police detained her in a room and did not allow her to leave. Meanwhile, officers interrogated her daughter in another room. The officers then allegedly decided that Taylor's daughter was not taking them seriously enough, handcuffed her, placed her in a squad car, and drove her to the police station, all without allowing her to see or speak to her mother.
Taylor's daughter was not ultimately booked or charged with a crime, but she was held in custody for four hours. Taylor and her daughter have since moved out of Hawaii.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Hawaii and the law firm Caballero Law LLC filed a civil rights lawsuit on behalf of Taylor and N.B. alleging false imprisonment, racial discrimination, and excessive force.
Lawyers for the city and county of Honolulu said that the violent cartoon at issue depicted a figure holding a gun above a severed head along with a threatening and vulgar message. They argued the cartoon created probable cause for officers to handcuff and N.B., even though she was complaint, because the cartoon indicated she was a "terroristic" threat.
"The [Honolulu Police Department] is committed to its even-handed, unbiased, and fair application of its policies and procedures in dealing with and responding to credible threats involving school violence," a spokesperson for the department told Reason in 2021. "In light of all of the events that have occurred on the mainland and here in Hawaii, and based on the facts, the HPD believes that its officers took action that they believed was reasonable and necessary under the circumstances given the nature of the threat."
In addition to demanding $500,000 in damages, Taylor's suit seeks to have the HPD and the Hawaii Department of Education enact several reforms, such as requiring that a parent or legal guardian be present whenever a minor is interrogated by an officer, and only calling police when a student presents an imminent threat of significant harm to someone.
Although the 9th Circuit denied the Honolulu police officers qualified immunity against Taylor's excessive force claims, it did dismiss her false arrest claim against the officers, ruling that Taylor failed to cite cases with identical circumstances, and that her general claim that one has the right to be free from arrest without probable cause was insufficient.
This is far from the first time a child has ended up in handcuffs at school. An Orlando school resource officer made national headlines in 2019 when he arrested a 6-year-old girl. In another case, body camera footage showed officers in Key West, Florida, trying and failing to handcuff an 8-year-old boy, whose wrists were too small for the cuffs. In 2021 in Colorado, the ACLU sued the Douglas County School District and the Douglas County Sheriff's Office for allegedly handcuffing an autistic 11-year-old boy and leaving him in the back of a police cruiser for two hours while he banged his head.
In response to such incidents, lawmakers around the country have been introducing legislation to raise the minimum age at which children can be arrested. Many states have no minimum age for juvenile delinquency, while others set the bar low. North Carolina's, for instance, is at age six.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Not going to talk about the bully, I see.
There's plenty of discussion of the cops. Don't they count?
Or the school's response to drawing "offensive" pictures.
But how much you want to bet they have gay porno in the school library?
Any amount you care to name, as long as we're not using some utterly bullshit definition of porn. But I expect you are, so no bet.
"Lawyers for the city and county of Honolulu said that the violent cartoon at issue depicted a figure holding a gun above a severed head along with a threatening and vulgar message. They argued the cartoon created probable cause for officers to handcuff and N.B., even though she was complaint, because the cartoon indicated she was a "terroristic" threat."
Good Lord.
"Taylor and her daughter have since moved out of Hawaii."
Good move.
Hopefully, not to California.
Frying pan, fire.
Or anywhere else on the left coast.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Hawaii and the law firm Caballero Law LLC filed a civil rights lawsuit on behalf of Taylor and N.B. alleging false imprisonment, racial discrimination, and excessive force.
Of course it's racial discrimination.
MIssed that; had the kid not been a POC, might they have ignored it [yeah, rhetorical question because white folks just inherently deserve whatever happens to them]?
It's Hawaii, so it's not out of the question that the kid might have been white.
Can't decide without knowing the immigration status of the girl.
Exactly.
If she's a Real Murican citizen: "This is an outrage and yet more evidence of government out of control."
If she's an illegal immigrant: "Well, she deserves what she gets because she crossed the border without papers."
She? You mean "it." Illegals aren't human.
Yawn.
Likely an immigrant as the officers were denied qualified immunity.
I'm assuming 'compliant' rather than 'complaint'.
This is why you should never use autocorrect.
^+1. Makes sure the wrong word is correctly spelled.
It's actually autocomplete that causes most such uncaught errors, not autocorrect.
So the 9th? Stopped clocks, blind squirrels, etc.
Unquestionably correct decision.
This is odd.
"Back in the day", it wasn't at all uncommon for cops to give "troubled youth" a ride in a cop car down to the station, just as a little example of what could happen if Little Jimmy didn't turn his life around. Mostly benign and with good intentions. But always with the blessing of the parents.
At first, I thought this was a case of trying to scare the girl straight, but the response of the cops seems to indicate otherwise.
I understand that for a teenager committing petty vandalism, and with the parent's permission. But for a 10 year old who drew a nasty drawing, committed no crimes, and was denied a call to her mother?
"it wasn’t at all uncommon for cops to give “troubled youth” a ride in a cop car down to the station"
How many of the "troubled youth" that took that ride in handcuffs back in the day were under 13? I would bet the answer is none.
Back the blue. This little thug decided not to take the school officials seriously; so the authorities had no choice but to escalate the response. And now for doing the job the parents should have been doing, they get a lawsuit.
If you see something, say something.
We need to find a way to attract a better class of people to law enforcement (and the military).
Better judgment, better education, better training, better temperament. Better accountability, better equipment, better management, better discipline . . . better just about everything.
We need better commenters than asshole bigots. FOAD, asshole.
My post was sarcastic. If that comment was directed at me . . . ..
We tried that. They sucked.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlhWdqMfK9g
https://www.police1.com/officer-safety/articles/video-civilian-helps-officer-subdue-suspect-who-assaulted-her-EQk5qFUNx0Kceah3/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBCJYGgpw5Q
Place me on a JURY, $10,000 PER MINUTE PER COP and PER TEACHER involved on the scene for the total time the minor spent in custody. This would be an award against INDIVIDUALS, each and every one.
I would then award 5 million against the DEPARTMENT for PRETENDING NOT to understand the law. There is no such thing as violating every one's rights being acceptable because it does not violate some people's rights. That is their argument.
I would then award 20 million against the school District for allwing/causing this to happen with insane ideology as to what they have the right to control. Controlling minds is not part of thier rights or duties.. Kids draw pictures, and usually are assigned that task. To tell a student that what they have drawn is a CRIME is in fact a VIOLATION OF FIRST AMENDMENT in accordance with HUNDREDS of established case law standards. The School initiated the violation of First Amendment under color of LAW (they have authority and are government). This lead to violation of 4th amendment and together are violations of 18 USC241, all parties involved should be in a FEDERAL PRISON for a minimum of 15 years. I would then DOUBLE the entire award as punitive damages.
This is what BOTH the teachers, the police officers and the district
Were they able to secure her firearm? Was she a lone wolf or is there a fifth grade terror organization we need to be concerned about?
", and that her general claim that one has the right to be free from arrest without probable cause was insufficient."
Say what, now ?