[EDRM Editor’s Note: The opinions and positions are those of Michael Berman.]
Much has been written about improper uses of GenAI, such as deepfakes and hallucinations.
Edwards v. Grubbs, __ Fed.4th __, 2026 WL 706637 (11th Cir. Mar. 13, 2026), demonstrates a proper use of GenAI.
Edwards was a consolidated appeal from a single use-of-force incident in Atlanta. “On that fateful day, City of Atlanta Police Officer Jon Grubbs pulled his taser’s trigger, hit Jerry Blasingame in the back, and sent him barreling down a steep embankment that led to a metal utility box on a concrete platform at the bottom. Mr. Blasingame suffered severe injuries when he hit the box and platform….” The jury awarded significant damages. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, with a modification reducing punitive damages.
Mr. Blasingame was a homeless man. He reached into a car and received money from the driver. Officer Grubbs exited his cruiser and approached Mr. Blasingame. In a 45-second event, Mr. Blasingame fled, crossed over a guardrail, and moved toward an opening in the brush with a steep decline and the highway below. The court wrote: “Without verbal warning, Officer Grubbs drew and deployed his taser, hitting Mr. Blasingame in the back. This caused Mr. Blasingame to fall down the steep embankment where he hit his head on the concrete platform of a utility box.”
The court described the scene: “Emergency medical services estimated the embankment to be 30 feet long. The distance between the point of impact on the utility box and the guardrail was approximately 23 feet and 9 inches. The angle of the decline was approximately 30 to 40 degrees, as displayed in these photographs and diagrams of the scene….”
The court’s opinion includes “D.E. 211-31 at 9…. Illustrative Diagram: 23ft 9 in Fall at 30-40° Decline.” A footnote to the opinion states: “This diagram was created with generative artificial intelligence.” [emphasis added]. Exhibit D.E. 211-31 at 9 follows:
This copy of the exhibit was obtained from Keith Edwards v. Officer J. Grubbs, et al, No. 22-13261 (11th Cir. 2026) :: Justia.
The GenAI was not challenged and appears to be what Judge Grimm and Dr. Grossman call “acknowledged” AI. See Maura R. Grossman & Hon. Paul W. Grimm (ret.), Judicial Approaches to Acknowledged and Unacknowledged Ai-Generated Evidence, 26 Colum. Sci. & Tech. L. Rev. 110 (2025).
The GenAI appears to have been important. The court wrote:
- “Here Mr. Blasingame was at the top of a 30-foot decline with a slope of 30 to 40 degrees and with dangers—a highway and a concrete structure—below. Specifically, Mr. Blasingame was running down a steep embankment when Officer Grubbs tased him in the back.”
- “We held in Bradley that tasing a non-dangerous and unarmed fleeing suspect on an elevated surface, under similar circumstances—the suspect was atop an eight-foot wall when shot—is ‘obviously unconstitutional even absent a case directly on point.’”
- “[T]asing a non-dangerous and unarmed suspect on an elevated surface merely to prevent flight—was obviously unconstitutional to any reasonable officer even in the absence of caselaw directly on point.”
- “What matters is that the embankment had a slope of 30 to 40 degrees and a drop of about 24 feet from the point of impact.”
- “In sum, the Fourth Amendment violation here—deployment of a taser against a non-violent, non-dangerous, and unarmed suspect fleeing down a steep embankment—was one of obvious clarity.”
In sum, the Fourth Amendment violation here—deployment of a taser against a non-violent, non-dangerous, and unarmed suspect fleeing down a steep embankment—was one of obvious clarity.
Keith Edwards v. Officer J. Grubbs, et al, No. 22-13261 (11th Cir. 2026).
The balance of the lengthy decision turns on legal issues unrelated to ESI or GenAI, such as, for example, qualified immunity and Monell issues.
The dissenting and concurring opinion stated:
Whether framed in terms of physics, trigonometry, or plain old common sense, the circumstances here are just different [from Bradley]. Taking a look at the photos referenced in the Court’s opinion, we see a grassy hill overgrown with vegetation. See Maj. Op. at 5–6 (citing D.E. 211-31 at 4, 9). The angle of descent is 30–40°, not the 90° at issue in Bradley. Accordingly, to be clear, this case did not involve a 24-foot “drop,” as that term is ordinarily understood. Contra Maj. Op. at 21. Rather, it involved, at most—and I’m not trying to trivialize matters, just to distinguish Bradley—a very short drop, from a standing to a prone position, followed by a 24-foot downhill tumble. One needn’t be a scientist—parsing the interactions between gravity, inertia, friction, etc.—to appreciate the difference between knocking someone off a high wall and causing him to roll down a hill.
That opinion added: “When Mr. Blasingame saw Officer Grubbs approaching, he fled along the shoulder of a highway, ignored orders to stop, hopped over a metal guardrail, and entered an overgrown area that, after a short upward slope, descended at what we now know was a 30° to 40° pitch toward another road.”
Suit was captioned as Keith Edwards, plaintiff, because he is the personal representative of the deceased Mr. Blasingame’s estate.
Assisted by GAI and LLM Technologies per EDRM’s GAI and LLM Policy.
