Positional asphyxiation

Positional asphyxiation is a fallacious medical theory misused to obtain criminal convictions. The theory is physically implausible and intrinsically entails reasonable doubt such that no reasonable jury would convict based on it.

Improperly relying on a biased Wikipedia entry, the Michigan Supreme Court declared that:

“

"Positional asphyxia refers" to suffocation that results when someone's position prevents them from breathing properly. See < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Positional_asphyxia> (accessed July 27, 2004).

”

Bryant v. Oakpointe Villa Nursing Ctr., Inc., 471 Mich. 411, 415 n.2, 684 N.W.2d 864, 867 (2004).

A total of 608 decisions -- 408 federal and 200 state -- refer to this bogus, unscientific theory. The U.S. Supreme Court has never used this term.

Fifth Circuit

Only 17 decisions by the Fifth Circuit has ever accepted this term, the most prominent of which merely cited the Tenth Circuit:

“

This conclusion comports with the decisions of our sister circuits that have considered similar facts. See McCue v. City of Bangor, 838 F.3d 55, 64 (1st Cir. 2016) (holding that "it was clearly established in September 2012 that exerting significant, continued force on a person's back 'while that [person] is in a face-down prone position after being subdued and/or incapacitated constitutes excessive force'" (citation omitted)); Weigel v. Broad, 544 F.3d 1143, 1155 (10th Cir. 2008) (holding that "the law was clearly established," by December 2002, "that applying pressure to [a subject's] upper back, once he was handcuffed and his legs restrained, was constitutionally unreasonable due to the significant risk of positional asphyxiation associated with such actions"); Abdullahi v. City of Madison, 423 F.3d 763, 764-66 (7th Cir. 2005) (holding that the record supported an inference of deadly force when an officer restrained a mentally ill individual in the prone restraint position with bodyweight force for thirty to forty-five seconds until the individual lost consciousness); Champion v. Outlook Nashville, Inc., 380 F.3d 893, 903 (6th Cir. 2004) (holding that the law in April 2000 clearly established that "putting substantial or significant pressure on a suspect's back while that suspect is in a face-down prone position after being subdued and/or incapacitated constituted excessive force"); Drummond ex rel. Drummond v. City of Anaheim, 343 F.3d 1052, 1061 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that the continued use of a prone restraint with weight force "despite [the arrestee's] repeated cries for air, and despite the fact that his hands were cuffed behind his back and he was offering no resistance" constituted excessive force).

”

Timpa v. Dillard, 20 F.4th 1020, 1036 (5th Cir. 2021).