Whitney Hodges v. City of Grand Rapids, Mich.

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION

Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)

File Name: 25a0142p.06

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

┐

WHITNEY HODGES, as personal representative of the

│

estate of Honestie Hodges,

│

Plaintiff-Appellee, │

│

v. > No. 24-1615

│

│

CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS et al., │

Defendants, │

│

│

SPENCER SELLNER, ANTHONY BARBERINO, and │

JEFFREY DIONNE, Officers, in their individual and │

official capacities, │

Defendants-Appellants. │

┘

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids.

No. 1:23-cv-01230—Hala Y. Jarbou, District Judge.

Decided and Filed: May 30, 2025

Before: SUHRHEINRICH, MOORE, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.

_________________

COUNSEL

ON BRIEF: Elizabeth J. Fossel, Sarah J. Hartman, Megan Luptowski, CITY OF GRAND

RAPIDS, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for Appellants. Stephen R. Drew, Adam C. Sturdivant,

DREW COOPER & ANDING, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for Appellee.

No. 24-1615 Hodges v. City of Grand Rapids, Mich. et al. Page 2

_________________

OPINION

_________________

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. In this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,

defendant police officers appeal from the district court’s partial denial of their motion to dismiss

on qualified-immunity grounds. Because the complaint adequately states a claim for relief we

AFFIRM the district court’s order, and, to the extent the officers ask us to resolve disputed

issues of fact, we DISMISS their appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

I. BACKGROUND

In this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff-appellee Whitney Hodges (“Hodges” or

“Whitney”) represents the estate of her late daughter, Honestie Hodges (“Honestie”).1 Hodges

alleges that on December 6, 2017, she watched then eleven-year-old Honestie “walk[] out of her

back door with an adult family friend, Aisha Rose, to go to a neighborhood store” when Grand

Rapids Police Department (“GRPD”) officers “abruptly and unexpectedly advanced on Honestie

with guns drawn.” R. 1 (Compl. ¶¶ 47, 49, 50) (Page ID #7). “[T]here were at least three to four

squad cars present with several officers surrounding the Hodges’ home.” Id. ¶ 69 (Page ID #9).

Defendant Spencer Sellner, with his gun drawn, “yelled commands at Honestie to approach him

by walking backward with her hands raised,” despite Whitney’s and Aisha’s2 protestations. Id.

¶¶ 52, 54–56 (Page ID #7–8). Honestie complied, at which point defendant Anthony Barberino

“commanded Honestie to put her right hand behind her back,” which she did. Id. ¶¶ 57–59 (Page

ID #8). “Defendant Barbarino [sic] pulled out his handcuffs and handcuffed Honestie’s hands

behind her back” as she “crie[d] and scream[ed]” in “fear, panic, and distress.” Id. ¶¶ 60–62

(Page ID #8). Barberino walked Honestie toward defendant Jeffrey Dionne while officer Jake

Bloom (who is not a party to this case) handcuffed Aisha, although Aisha “informed the officers

that [neither] she, nor anyone at the Hodges residence, had done anything wrong.” Id. ¶¶ 40, 63,

1

Tragically, Honestie died at the age of fourteen in 2020 due to complications from COVID-19. R. 1

(Compl. ¶ 12) (Page ID #3).

2

The complaint uses the spellings “Aisha Rose” and “Aisha Rosa” interchangeably. For clarity, we use

Aisha’s first name.

No. 24-1615 Hodges v. City of Grand Rapids, Mich. et al. Page 3

65 (Page ID #6, 8). Honestie, still handcuffed, was “put in the custody” of defendant Dionne,

who walked her to a nearby police car and searched her for weapons as she cried but continued

to comply with Dionne’s commands and answer his questions. Id. ¶¶ 70–72, 74 (Page ID #9).

At the instruction of Sergeant Thomas Bush (also not a party), Dionne removed Honestie’s

handcuffs and left her sitting in the police car with the door closed as she continued to cry. Id.

¶¶ 39, 75–77 (Page ID #6, 9).

The complaint alleges that “GRPD was looking for an adult Caucasian woman who had

allegedly stabbed another individual at a different location,” and had been “described as wearing

her hair in a ponytail bun and wearing a black coat.” Id. ¶¶ 78–79 (Page ID #9). Honestie was

“African American and was an 11-year-old child at the time of the incident,” whose “hair was

not in a ponytail bun” and who “did not match the description of GRPD’s suspect.” Id. ¶¶ 80–82

(Page ID #9). “Neither Honestie, [Aisha], nor Whitney Hodges made any movements to signal

that they were fleeing the police, attempting to evade the officers on the scene, or were an

immediate threat to anyone.” Id. ¶ 67 (Page ID #8). “Honestie was not armed, believed to be

armed, nor did she pose any immediate threat or danger to anyone,” and she “did not make any

movements that caused a threat to any of the GRPD officers on scene.” Id. ¶¶ 122–23 (Page ID

#15). “The officer[s] eventually cleared the house and the scene. The suspect they were looking

for was not at that location.” Id. ¶ 84 (Page ID #10).

Hodges alleges that by “seiz[ing] and detain[ing] Honestie at gunpoint . . . with the use of

handcuffs, and by placing her in a police car, in the absence of probable cause or reasonable

suspicion that she had committed any crime,” Sellner, Barberino, and Dionne “violated

Honestie’s clearly established right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.” Id.

¶¶ 114–15 (Page ID #14). According to the complaint, when Sellner pointed his gun at Honestie

and when Barberino handcuffed her, they used excessive force. Id. ¶¶ 132–46 (Page ID #16–17).

The complaint also alleges that when, after Barberino handcuffed Honestie, Dionne put her in the

police cruiser, Dionne and Barberino falsely imprisoned her, id. ¶¶ 118–26 (Page ID #15), all in

violation of Honestie’s Fourth Amendment rights, id.; id. ¶¶ 132–46 (Page ID #15–17).

No. 24-1615 Hodges v. City of Grand Rapids, Mich. et al. Page 4

II. ANALYSIS

A. Standard of Review

We review de novo a district court’s denial of a motion to dismiss on qualified-immunity

grounds. Marvaso v. Sanchez, 971 F.3d 599, 605 (6th Cir. 2020).3 A district court should grant

a motion to dismiss if the complaint “fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Marvaso, 971 F.3d at 605. A complaint states a claim when it alleges

facts that, if true, make out a claim for relief that is plausible on its face, and that “allow[] the

court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “Thus, when evaluating a complaint’s sufficiency,

we accept its factual allegations as true, draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor,

and only then determine whether those facts and inferences plausibly give rise to an entitlement

to relief.” Marvaso, 971 F.3d at 605. This is so even where a defendant raises the defense of

qualified immunity. Id.

Qualified immunity protects public officials from suit unless “(1) . . . the official violated

a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) . . . the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the

challenged conduct.” Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735 (2011) (quoting Harlow v.

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)). “A Government official’s conduct violates clearly

established law when, at the time of the challenged conduct, ‘[t]he contours of [a] right [are]

sufficiently clear’ that every ‘reasonable official would [have understood] that what he is doing

violates that right.’” Id. at 741(alterations in al-Kidd) (quoting Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S.

635, 640 (1987)). “We do not require a case directly on point, but existing precedent must have

placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate.” Id. The plaintiff ultimately bears

the burden to show that the defendant public official is not entitled to qualified immunity,

Guertin v. Michigan, 912 F.3d 907, 917 (6th Cir. 2019), but on a motion to dismiss, the question

3

The district court here also partially granted the officers’ motion by dismissing the complaint’s municipal-

liability and substantive-due-process counts, as well as the counts brought under the Michigan constitution and

Michigan state law. Hodges v. City of Grand Rapids, No. 1:23-cv-1230, 2024 WL 3040882, at *8–15 (W.D. Mich.

June 18, 2024). Only Hodges’s Fourth Amendment claims against the individual officers remain. Id. at *14.

No. 24-1615 Hodges v. City of Grand Rapids, Mich. et al. Page 5

for the court is whether the plaintiff has plausibly alleged that the defendant violated a clearly

established constitutional right. Marvaso, 971 F.3d at 605.

Because qualified immunity is a defense to suit rather than liability, the Supreme Court

has “stressed the importance of resolving immunity questions at the earliest possible stage in

litigation.” Guertin, 912 F.3d at 917 (quoting Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009)).

We have said, however, that this “point is usually summary judgment and not dismissal under

Rule 12.” Id. (quoting Wesley v. Campbell, 779 F.3d 421, 433–34 (6th Cir. 2015)).

The initial motion-to-dismiss question—whether a complaint pleads facts that, when

presumed true, give rise to a plausible inference that the defendants violated a constitutional

right—is fairly straightforward. And at summary judgment and trial the defendants will have an

opportunity to demonstrate that the facts are not as the plaintiff pleaded them. But “analyzing

the second prong of qualified immunity—whether the alleged constitutional violation is clearly

established—‘is sometimes difficult’ on the pleadings, since that ‘inquiry may turn on case-

specific details that must be fleshed out in discovery.’” Myers v. City of Centerville, 41 F.4th

746, 758 (6th Cir. 2022) (quoting Crawford v. Tilley, 15 F.4th 752, 765 (6th Cir. 2021)).

“‘Absent any factual development beyond the allegations in a complaint, a court cannot fairly

tell whether a case is obvious or squarely governed by precedent, which prevents us from

determining whether the facts of this case parallel a prior decision or not’ for purposes of

determining whether a right is clearly established.” Guertin, 912 F.3d at 917 (quoting Evans-

Marshall v. Bd. of Educ. of Tipp City Exempted Vill. Sch. Dist., 428 F.3d 223, 235 (6th Cir.

2005) (Sutton, J., concurring)).

Indeed, “the application of qualified immunity today can turn on minute factual

distinctions,” Crawford, 15 F.4th at 765, particularly in light of Supreme Court precedent

holding that, “in performing Fourth Amendment qualified immunity analysis, we must confine

ourselves to ‘the situation [the officer] confronted,’ [and] carefully consider[] the ‘particular

factual context[]’ at issue.” Hart v. Hillsdale County, 973 F.3d 627, 642 (6th Cir. 2020) (first

and fourth alterations in Hart) (quoting District of Columbia v. Wesby, 583 U.S. 48, 64 (2018)).

“That is hard to accomplish at the motion to dismiss stage.” Id. “Oftentimes, we need a fuller

factual picture to define the contours of the right at issue to determine if it was clearly

No. 24-1615 Hodges v. City of Grand Rapids, Mich. et al. Page 6

established.” Diei v. Boyd, 116 F.4th 637, 650 (6th Cir. 2024). Qualified immunity is, however,

resolvable at the motion-to-dismiss stage “when the complaint establishes the defense.” Siefert

v. Hamilton County, 951 F.3d 753, 762 (6th Cir. 2020). It is therefore crucial that we define the

proper scope of the record on which we review the district court’s denial of the defendants’

motion to dismiss—the breadth of that record also guides the clearly established analysis.

As we will explain, the complaint here does not establish the defense of qualified

immunity because Hodges has alleged facts making plausible the inference that the officers

violated Honestie’s clearly established Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable

search and seizure, false imprisonment or arrest, and excessive force.

B. Scope of the Record

The officers seek to avoid this conclusion by imploring us to consider substantial

evidence outside the complaint, which they say tells a more complete story of the events of

December 6, 2017 and demonstrates why they did not violate Honestie’s clearly established

rights. See Appellants Br. at 12–14, 27–32; Reply Br. at 3. Although at the pleading stage we

are generally limited to the facts alleged in the complaint (which we must construe in favor the

plaintiff), Blackwell v. Nocerini, 123 F.4th 479, 486 (6th Cir. 2024), the officers argue that we

may (and indeed must) consider (1) video of the incident from officers’ body-worn cameras

because it contradicts the complaint’s allegations (and omissions) and, (2) police reports

summarizing the incident because they are public records that merely fill in the contours of the

complaint. See Appellants Br. at 12–14. The district court ultimately declined to rely on the

video and police reports for its qualified-immunity holding. Hodges v. City of Grand Rapids,

No. 1:23-cv-1230, 2024 WL 3040882, at *3, *5 (W.D. Mich. Jun. 18, 2024). “We review the

district court’s treatment of materials outside the pleadings for an abuse of discretion, . . . which

occurs when the district court ‘relies on clearly erroneous findings of fact, applies the law

improperly, or uses an erroneous legal standard.’” Wershe v. City of Detroit, 112 F.4th 357, 373

(6th Cir. 2024) (citation omitted) (quoting United States v. Pembrook, 609 F.3d 381, 383 (6th

Cir. 2010)).

No. 24-1615 Hodges v. City of Grand Rapids, Mich. et al. Page 7

It may be true, as the officers imply, that the video and police reports tell a more

complete story of what happened on the night in question, but at this stage, we do not require a

complete story; we require a plausible one. Marvaso, 971 F.3d at 605. We may not consider

materials outside the complaint except in narrow circumstances, and, as we shall explain, none

apply here. The officers will have an opportunity to present what they view to be the complete

story at summary judgment or at trial.

A few words about jurisdiction before we begin: “[a]lthough most denials of motions to

dismiss are non-final orders that do not fall within Congress’s statutory grant of appellate

jurisdiction, . . . [p]ursuant to the collateral-order doctrine, ‘a district court’s order rejecting

qualified immunity at the motion-to-dismiss stage of a proceeding is a final decision within the

meaning of § 1291,’” conferring appellate jurisdiction over appeals from such an order.

Courtright v. City of Battle Creek, 839 F.3d 513, 517 (6th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted) (quoting

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 672). “We have jurisdiction only to the extent that the defendant ‘limit[s] his

argument to questions of law premised on facts taken in the light most favorable to the

plaintiff.’” Adams v. Blount County, 946 F.3d 940, 948 (6th Cir. 2020) (alteration in Adams)

(quoting Phillips v. Roane County, 534 F.3d 531, 538 (6th Cir. 2008)). “[W]e may overlook a

factual disagreement if a defendant, despite disputing a plaintiff’s version of the story, is ‘willing

to concede the most favorable view of the facts to the plaintiff for purposes of the appeal.’” Id.

(quoting Barry v. O’Grady, 895 F.3d 440, 443 (6th Cir. 2018)). And “[w]e may still review

‘pure question[s] of law, despite the defendants’ failure to concede the plaintiff’s version of the

facts[.]’” Id. (first alteration added) (quoting Livermore ex rel. Rohm v. Lubelan, 476 F.3d 397,

403 (6th Cir. 2007)).

The normal motion-to-dismiss standard mirrors the scope of our appellate jurisdiction in

appeals from the denial of qualified immunity. Id. On a motion to dismiss, our inquiry is

premised on the purely legal question of whether the facts alleged, taken in the light most

favorable to the plaintiff, state a claim for relief. See Marvaso, 971 F.3d at 605. We are thus

precluded from answering questions of fact by the final-judgment rule and by our law regarding

motions to dismiss. We agree with Hodges that the officers have surfaced several “disputed

[factual] issues that should be explored during discovery and not with this appeal,” Appellee Br.

No. 24-1615 Hodges v. City of Grand Rapids, Mich. et al. Page 8

at 20, but we retain jurisdiction over the question of whether Hodges has plausibly alleged a

violation of Honestie’s clearly established rights, see Adams, 946 F.3d at 948. As follows from

our refusal discussed infra to consider the video and police reports, that is the only question we

can or should answer at this stage. Id. We lack jurisdiction over the disputed factual issues of

whether the officers in fact had reasonable suspicion or probable cause to detain or arrest

Honestie, and whether the scene was in fact sufficiently dangerous to merit Honestie’s detention

and the force the officers used in executing it.

1. Body-Worn-Camera Footage

In the motion-to-dismiss context, “we have consistently held that we may only consider

. . . video footage over the pleadings when ‘the videos are clear and blatantly contradict[] or

utterly discredit[] the plaintiff’s version of events.’” Saalim v. Walmart, Inc., 97 F.4th 995, 1002

(6th Cir. 2024) (alterations in Saalim) (quoting Bell v. City of Southfield, 37 F.4th 362, 364 (6th

Cir. 2022)). “This is because if a video clearly depicts a set of facts contrary to those alleged in

the complaint, this makes a plaintiff’s allegations implausible.” Id. “But when the video does

not blatantly contradict or utterly discredit the complaint, we do not consider it on [a] Rule 12

motion. Instead, as when assessing any motion made under Rule 12, we rely on the allegations

in the pleadings alone.” Id.

We must therefore determine whether the officers’ proffered video evidence blatantly

contradicts or utterly discredits Hodges’s allegations that officers lacked probable cause or

reasonable suspicion to detain or arrest Honestie and that they did so using excessive force.

Although the complaint does not reflect what, precisely, led officers to believe a stabbing suspect

might have fled to Honestie’s address, the parties agree that officers were indeed searching for a

stabbing suspect and that Honestie did not match the suspect’s description. Appellants Br. at 4;

Reply Br. at 20; R. 1 (Compl. ¶¶ 2–3, 78–82) (Page ID #2, 9).

The officers rely on our decision in Bell v. City of Southfield to contend that “[w]here a

Plaintiff omits from her pleadings facts that are material to this Court’s qualified-immunity

analysis, and those facts are revealed by the video footage, the Court may treat the video as

blatantly contradicting the complaint’s omission.” Reply Br. at 6. In Bell, we posed “a

No. 24-1615 Hodges v. City of Grand Rapids, Mich. et al. Page 9

hypothetical where there are only two facts relevant to the outcome of an appeal from the denial

of qualified immunity: first, whether the officer tased the plaintiff, and second, whether the

plaintiff was holding a gun at the time.” 37 F.4th at 366. We posited that if “[t]he plaintiff’s

complaint only mentions the officer’s tasing” and “[t]here’s no mention of a gun anywhere in the

complaint,” but “the video footage clearly shows the plaintiff holding a gun,” then “the gun’s

presence blatantly contradicts the complaint’s omission.” Id. Meanwhile, where “the video

evidence is inconclusive as to what the plaintiff was holding,” it does not blatantly contradict or

utterly undermine the complaint’s allegations, and we must “rely only on the facts in the

complaint.” Id. In Bell, we took note of the plaintiff’s affirmative allegation that officers had

“no need to” tase him, and held that the complaint’s omission of the plaintiff’s continued

resistance was directly contradicted by video evidence “that he continued resisting the officers as

they attempted to restrain him.” Id. at 367.

Even accepting Bell’s premise that we could permissibly use a conclusive video to fill

holes in a complaint, the instant case is like the second of Bell’s hypotheses, where the video is

inconclusive as to whether the hypothetical plaintiff was holding a gun. The officers insist that

the video here contradicts the complaint because they assert that “the video makes clear that the

officers went to the Hodges’s [sic] specific address because they had information that a suspect

in a stabbing was at that house or might be coming to that house,” Reply Br. at 4, a fact they

argue that the complaint omits, id. at 7–8; Appellants Br. at 13–14. But the video does not in

fact show why police went to Honestie’s house. The officers cite portions of the video where

officers state to Whitney and Aisha that they have information that a suspect might be at the

address, but the officers do not point to a portion of the video that would reveal what that

information was. Appellants Br. at 28 (citing R. 14-4 (Bush Body Cam. at 9:49–10:15), R. 14-6

(Bloom Body Cam. at 12:20–12:25)); Reply Br. at 4 (same). An officer’s mere statement that

they have reason to believe a crime has occurred does not, without more, establish what

“particularized and objective basis” the officers actually had “for suspecting that criminal

activity might be ‘afoot’ and that it might involve” Honestie’s home. Reply Br. at 13–14.

Again, the complaint already acknowledges that police were looking for the stabbing suspect; it

just does not say why. The video does not fill this gap.

No. 24-1615 Hodges v. City of Grand Rapids, Mich. et al. Page 10

The officers continue that “Plaintiff attempts to controvert . . . whether the scene in which

the Officers’ [sic] interacted with Honestie was ‘dangerous.’” Id. at 5 (quoting Appellee Br. at

30).4 The complaint contains no allegations about the safety or danger of the physical scene that

could be directly contradicted by the video, even if danger were apparent from the face of the

video. The officers argue that the complaint’s omission of details about the dark, confined space

in which the events unfolded is analogous to Bell’s hypothetical complaint that omits mention of

the plaintiff holding a gun at the time of a tasing. Id. at 5–8. But, whether the scene was

sufficiently dangerous to merit the officers’ treatment of Honestie is a question of fact over

which we lack jurisdiction. See Adams, 946 F.3d at 948. Consideration of the officers’ briefing

confirms as much: in contrast to Bell’s hypothetical of two facts relevant to the qualified-

immunity analysis (whether the officer tased the plaintiff and whether the plaintiff was holding a

gun—both simple yes or no questions), the officers argue here that we should consider two “sets

of facts,” one set that appears in both the complaint and video, and another that appears only in

the video. Reply Br. at 7. Appellants argue that the complaint’s omission of the second set of

facts allows us to consider both sets, despite the fact that, together, they take up half a page of the

officers’ brief, and contain extensive additional factual detail regarding the information police

received, the physical layout of the arrest scene, the positioning of Honestie relative to the other

two women with her, as well as the physical appearances of those women. Id. Whereas, in

Bell’s hypothetical, a viewer could tell from a glance at the hypothetical video whether the

hypothetical plaintiff was holding a gun when he was tased, here it would require much closer

interpretation and analysis to identify potential conflicts (if any) between the video’s depiction of

the officers’ proffered facts and the complaint’s purported omissions.

Even if the video showed what the officers say it does, it is not clear that the complaint’s

mere omission—of the information that police officers had received reports that the stabbing

suspect might flee to Honestie’s address or of a physical description of the scene—can meet the

directly-contradicts-or-utterly-discredits threshold. The complaint’s failure to explain what

information led the police to Honestie’s home must be read in concert with its allegations that the

4

Of course, this assertion by the officers flips the relevant inquiry on its head; at this stage it is the officers

who are (improperly) attempting to controvert the complaint, not the other way around.

No. 24-1615 Hodges v. City of Grand Rapids, Mich. et al. Page 11

police lacked “probable cause or reasonable suspicion that Honestie was committing or had

committed a crime.” R. 1 (Compl. ¶ 8) (Page ID #2). The complaint’s key contention is that,

whatever reason officers had to detain Honestie that day, it was not enough. Indeed, although

Bell interpreted the complaint there as omitting the plaintiff’s continued resistance from the

complaint’s allegation of excessive force, the plaintiff’s allegation that officers had “no need to”

tase him was also an affirmative, if implicit, allegation that the plaintiff was not resisting. 37

F.4th at 367. And in Bell, the video directly and obviously contradicted the plaintiff’s allegation

because it “clearly show[ed]” the plaintiff resisting, giving officers reason to tase him and

contradicting the complaint. Id. But here, the video does not, at the motion-to-dismiss stage,

resolve the context-specific question of whether officers had probable cause or reasonable

suspicion the way a video might resolve whether a suspect had a gun in their hand or was

resisting arrest.

Even if it did, acceptance of the appellants’ invitation to consider the video over the

complaint would threaten our jurisdiction. See Adams, 946 F.3d at 948. That is because a

dispute about whether officers had probable cause or reasonable suspicion under the

circumstances is necessarily fact bound and would require us to answer factual questions about

what circumstances actually existed. See Hart, 973 F.3d at 642.

Similarly, details about the dark and confined nature of the scene may well be relevant to

determining whether officers had cause to detain Honestie, but they are relevant to the merits of

Hodges’s claims. A dispute about whether the scene was dangerous enough to justify the

detention of an eleven-year-old girl is the type of quintessential fact issue resolved by a jury or at

summary judgment in qualified-immunity cases. Our law provides that the probable cause and

reasonable suspicion inquiries are “confine[d] . . . to ‘the situation [the officer] confronted,’” and

that we must “carefully consider[] the ‘particular factual context[]’ at issue.” Id. (alterations in

Hart) (quoting Wesby, 583 U.S. at 64). But here, because our inquiry is (rightfully) confined to

the complaint, “[t]he ‘circumstances with which the officers were confronted’ are unknown,”

which “demonstrates why this case cannot be resolved on a motion to dismiss.” Id. at 641. To

accept the officers’ contention that, at the motion-to-dismiss stage, we can consider evidence of

“a potential threat to the safety of the Officers (and even to Honestie) which justified all of [the

No. 24-1615 Hodges v. City of Grand Rapids, Mich. et al. Page 12

Officers’] action in this case,” Reply Br. at 8, just because the complaint (naturally) presents a

different perspective on the events, would be to allow the exception to swallow the rule.

In qualified-immunity cases, a plaintiff will often argue that the circumstances did not

create probable cause, reasonable suspicion, or threat to an officer, and defendants will often

disagree. Plaintiffs are not, as the officers’ arguments imply, required to allege every fact that a

court might glean from available video evidence in order to survive a motion to dismiss. So long

as their allegations are not blatantly contradicted or utterly undermined by video evidence,

Saalim, 97 F.4th at 1002, the plaintiff need only allege facts that give rise to the plausible

inference that the defendants violated a clearly established right, Courtright, 839 F.3d at 518.

The officers cannot escape this fundamental rule by arguing that the video shows a more

complete picture of the events than the complaint; that is an argument for summary judgment or

for trial. As discussed above, we see nothing in the video that blatantly contradicts or utterly

undermines Hodges’s allegation that the officers lacked probable cause or reasonable suspicion.

And the officers will have an opportunity to contest that allegation on the merits using whatever

admissible evidence they wish to present, just not at the motion-to-dismiss stage.

The district court initially relied on Bell’s statement that, “when uncontroverted video

evidence easily resolves a case . . . it makes little sense to waste time and effort by ignoring the

videos’ contents,” 37 F.4th at 364, to find erroneously that it could consider the video evidence,

Hodges, 2024 WL 3040882, at *4. But Bell’s very next sentence notes that, on a motion to

dismiss, “our use of the videos is limited” and that “we can only rely on the videos over the

complaint to the degree the videos are clear and ‘blatantly contradict[]’ or ‘utterly discredit[]’ the

plaintiff’s version of events.” Bell, 37 F.4th at 364 (alterations in Bell) (quoting Scott v. Harris,

550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007)). This confirms that, even if available video evidence would save

“time and effort” or would “easily resolve a case,” we may not consider it at the motion-to-

dismiss stage if it does not blatantly contradict or utterly undermine the complaint. Id. To the

district court’s credit, it acknowledged this is as well, and despite utilizing the video in its

recitation of the facts, the district court found that the video footage did not blatantly contradict

or utterly undermine the complaint’s allegations and did not support the officers’ claims of

qualified immunity. Hodges, 2024 WL 3040882, at *5. Because we agree and ultimately affirm

No. 24-1615 Hodges v. City of Grand Rapids, Mich. et al. Page 13

the district court’s denial of qualified immunity, the district court’s use of the video was

harmless.

2. Police Reports

The officers contend that the district court erred by refusing to consider two documents

which they attached to their motion to dismiss. They argue on appeal that we should consider a

Computer Automated Dispatch (“CAD”) Event Report and an Incident Report (together, “the

reports”), which purport to summarize the events that led police to Honestie’s house that day, as

well as the events that came after. See R. 14-1 (CAD Rep.) (Page ID #115); R. 14-3 (Incident

Rep.) (Page ID #121). The district court declined to take the reports into account on the grounds

that it was “not obligated to consider evidence that is ‘subject to reasonable dispute’ or that

‘captures only part of the incident and would provide a distorted view of the events at issue[.]’”

Hodges, 2024 WL 3040882, at *3 (alteration in Hodges) (quoting Jones v. City of Cincinnati,

521 F.3d 555, 562 (6th Cir. 2008)).

“When a party moves to dismiss an action under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim

upon which relief can be granted, both sides proceed with the expectation that the court will

decide the motion on the basis of the pleadings alone unless the court notifies them otherwise.”

Chun Ok Song v. City of Elyria, 985 F.2d 840, 842 (6th Cir. 1993). Indeed, Rule 12(d) provides

that “[i]f . . . matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the

motion must be treated as one for summary judgment under Rule 56. All parties must be given a

reasonable opportunity to present all the material that is pertinent to the motion.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(d). That said, courts “may consider the Complaint and any exhibits attached thereto, public

records, items appearing in the record of the case and exhibits attached to defendant’s motion to

dismiss so long as they are referred to in the Complaint and are central to the claims contained

therein” without converting to a summary-judgment motion. Bassett v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic

Ass’n, 528 F.3d 426, 430 (6th Cir. 2008).

An animating concern behind Rule 12(d) is that, where the court considers extraneous

material (even public records) on a motion to dismiss, “there is no way for an opposing party,

prior to the issuance of the court’s decision, to register his or her disagreement with the facts in

No. 24-1615 Hodges v. City of Grand Rapids, Mich. et al. Page 14

the document of which the court was taking notice.” Passa v. City of Columbus, 123 F. App’x

694, 697 (6th Cir. 2005). To put a finer point on it, there is no way for the opposing party to

develop and present evidence to support their disagreement with the facts presented in the extra-

complaint material. For this reason, and as the district court correctly noted, Hodges, 2024 WL

3040882, at *3, “[w]here the evidence ‘captures only part of the incident and would provide a

distorted view of the events at issue,’ . . . we do not require a court to consider that evidence on a

12(b)(6) motion,” Jones, 521 F.3d at 562 (citation omitted).

The officers’ proffered reports illustrate the problem. The Incident Report contains over

a dozen officers’ narrative accounts of the events of December 6. R. 14-3 (Incident Rep. at 5–

11) (Page ID #124–30). If this case were before us at the summary-judgment stage, Hodges

would have had the opportunity to depose these officers about the accuracy of their statements

and could dispute the version of events presented in the Incident Report. Likewise, the CAD

Report contains what appear to be logs of real-time communications between dispatchers and

officers. R. 14-1 (CAD Rep. at 2–5) (Page ID #115–18). At the summary-judgment stage,

Hodges would have had the opportunity to develop evidence about what was happening in the

background of these in-the-moment communications and whether that information was

accurately relayed to the officers on the scene. But at the motion-to-dismiss stage, Hodges has

had no such opportunities, and for good reason; at this stage, the factual allegations in the

complaint are not in dispute—the legal sufficiency of the complaint is. When the officers argue

that the reports “simply filled in the contours and details of Plaintiff’s Complaint,” Appellants

Br. at 51, they mean that the reports fill in the details of the complaint with the officers’ version

of the facts. See Blackwell, 123 F.4th at 487 (holding that it would “flout[] basic pleading rules”

to consider the defendant-officials’ proffered extra-complaint police reports—purporting to

document a threat the plaintiff reportedly made in the lead up to his allegedly illegal arrest, but

which was not in the complaint—because the documents represented the officials’ “own

conflicting story about the investigation”). At the motion-to-dismiss stage, this is impermissible.

The reports are quintessential evidence, which the officers will have an opportunity to present

before the district court should they choose to move for summary judgment.

No. 24-1615 Hodges v. City of Grand Rapids, Mich. et al. Page 15

The officers nonetheless argue that the district court should have considered the reports

because they are public records, see id., but in doing so they rely on the definition of the term

“public records” for purposes of the hearsay exception contained in Federal Rule of Evidence

803(8). Appellants Br. at 48 & n.10 (acknowledging that “this Court has not expressly defined

what can be considered a ‘public record’ when it comes to documents offered in support of a

Motion to Dismiss” (emphasis omitted)). The officers provide no basis for their resort to this

rule and we see no reason why its definition should control. We think it likely that our case

law’s use of the term “public records” is better understood to mean something closer to “matters

of public record,” like those of which we may take judicial notice. 5B Charles A. Wright &

Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1357 (4th ed. 2024); Blackwell, 123 F.4th at

487 (“We . . . allow district courts to take judicial notice of ‘public records’ without converting a

motion to dismiss into a summary-judgment motion.” (quoting Jackson v. City of Columbus, 194

F.3d 737, 745 (6th Cir. 1999))); Wyser-Pratte Mgmt. Co. v. Telxon Corp., 413 F.3d 553, 560 (6th

Cir. 2005) (“In addition to the allegations in the complaint, the court may also consider other

materials that are integral to the complaint, are public records, or are otherwise appropriate for

the taking of judicial notice.” (emphasis added)).

The judicial-notice framing makes sense because it ameliorates the fairness concerns that

animate Rule 12(d); ordinarily, we take judicial notice of adjudicative facts that “can be

accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be

questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2); accord In re Omnicare, Inc. Sec. Litig., 769 F.3d 455, 467

(6th Cir. 2014). On a motion to dismiss, “[c]ourts may consider public records for the truth of

the statements contained within them only when the ‘contents prove facts whose accuracy cannot

reasonably be questioned.’” Elec. Merch. Sys. LLC v. Gaal, 58 F.4th 877, 883 (6th Cir. 2023)

(quoting Passa, 123 F. App’x at 697). Otherwise, “[t]his exception . . . generally allows a court

to conclude only that the record exists; the exception does not allow the court to treat all

information in the record as true.” Blackwell, 123 F.4th at 487.5

5

The officers argue that the reports are not offered for their truth, but rather for their effect on the listener—

“merely to show what information the Officers had that prompted them to go to the Hodges’s [sic] residence and act

with caution.” Appellants Br. at 49 n.11. But that is offering the report for truth. The officers want the court to

consider these documents because they go to the heart of a key merits issue in this case and one over which we have

No. 24-1615 Hodges v. City of Grand Rapids, Mich. et al. Page 16

A party cannot evade Rule 201’s requirements by proffering a purported public record in

support of its motion to dismiss, rather than in another context. In fact, for the reasons outlined

above, restrictions on judicial notice of adjudicative facts may be particularly important at the

motion-to-dismiss stage where the parties have not yet had an opportunity to develop their

evidence. The hearsay exception in Rule 803(8) may rest on the premise that “matter[s]

observed while under a legal duty to report” or “factual findings from a legally authorized

investigation,” Fed. R. Evid. 803(8)(A), are more reliable than other hearsay statements for

purposes of trial, see Robert P. Mosteller, 2 McCormick on Evidence § 295 (9th ed. 2025). But

the hearsay exception simply does not provide sufficient protection at the motion-to-dismiss

stage. See Passa, 123 F. App’x at 697. At trial, the opposing party would have the opportunity

to offer evidence to counter the content of a Rule 803(8) public report or to question its

credibility. No such opportunity exists at this stage.

Ultimately, a district court has “discretion to reject any extra-pleading matter if the judge

feels that it is not substantial or comprehensive enough to facilitate the disposition of the action.”

5C Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1364 (3d ed. 2024).

Because the reports present only the appellants’ version of the facts, which Hodges has not had

opportunity to dispute with her own evidence, and because “the subject matter of those [reports]

is the heart of the matter contested in this suit,” we cannot say the district court abused its

discretion in declining to consider the reports as public records on the grounds that their contents

are subject to dispute. See In re Omnicare, 769 F.3d at 468.

The officers’ next argument, that the CAD Report should be considered because it was

referred to in the complaint and is central to Hodges’s claims, Appellants Br. at 50–51, fails

because it rests on nothing but factual overlap and linguistic similarity between the complaint

and CAD Report. See Blackwell, 123 F.4th at 487 (affirming district court’s refusal to consider

no jurisdiction: whether officers in fact had probable cause or reasonable suspicion to detain Honestie. And

regardless, the question at this stage is whether the court may take judicial notice of the reports, not whether the

reports might later be presented to a jury pursuant to an exception to the hearsay rule. The purpose for which the

documents were offered is therefore inconsequential. See Blackwell, 123 F.4th at 487. The only thing the court can

permissibly glean from the reports at this stage is that the police department documented the events of December 6

in the form of a CAD Report and Incident Report. Anything further would unfairly presuppose the reports’

accuracy.

No. 24-1615 Hodges v. City of Grand Rapids, Mich. et al. Page 17

police report and criminal complaint when the plaintiff’s “complaint generically refer[red] to the

police investigation and prosecution” but not to the documents themselves). If, on a motion to

dismiss, a district court could consider any document that described some of the same facts

alleged in the complaint, Rule 12(d)’s protections would lose their meaning.

In this context, a document is central to a complaint when the legal sufficiency of the

complaint depends on the content of the document. Id. (“As the classic example, a plaintiff who

asserts a breach-of-contract claim cannot prohibit a district court from considering the whole

contract (including the contract terms that undermine the claimed breach) merely by omitting the

contract from the complaint.”). Here, Hodges’s “claim[s’] . . . validity [does not] rise[] or fall[]

with” the contents of the reports. Id. “If anything, it is more accurate to say that the [reports] are

central to the [officers’] defense.” Id.

Also doomed is the officers’ argument that the reports were properly before the district

court because they merely “filled in the contours and details of Plaintiff’s Complaint,” a

proposition for which the officers cite unsupported dicta. Appellants Br. at 46, 51–52.6 In

asking the court to consider the fact-laden reports, the officers “ask us to disregard the normal

‘presumption of truth’ that we must give to a complaint’s well-pleaded facts based on their own

conflicting story about the investigation.” Blackwell, 123 F.4th at 487 (quoting Carrier Corp. v.

Outokumpu Oyj, 673 F.3d 430, 442 (6th Cir. 2012)). The officers will have an opportunity to tell

their side of the story by filling in the contours of Hodges’s allegations at summary judgment or

at trial, but for now, she is the master of her complaint. Cf. Rogers v. Webstaurant Store, Inc.,

774 F. App’x 278, 282 (6th Cir. 2019) (“Most importantly, the plaintiff decides what factual

allegations go into her complaint.”).

6

Yeary v. Goodwill Indus.-Knoxville, Inc., 107 F.3d 443, 445 (6th Cir. 1997), does not bind us for two

reasons: first, Yeary’s holding did not rely on the comment in dicta that the extra-complaint material in question

“simply filled in the contours and details of the plaintiff's complaint, and added nothing new.” Id. at 445. Instead,

the court held that the district court’s rationale did not in fact hinge on the additional information provided by the

extraneous documents and so there was no reversible error. Id. Second, the officers’ assertion that, like in Yeary,

the reports add nothing new to the complaint, is obviously wrong—the reports contain many of the same details that

are portrayed in the video and which, in that context, the officers argue blatantly contradict and utterly undermine

Hodges’s complaint. The same information cannot add “nothing new” to the complaint while simultaneously

contradicting it.

No. 24-1615 Hodges v. City of Grand Rapids, Mich. et al. Page 18

Finally, the officers cite nonbinding out-of-circuit law for the proposition that the court

should consider the reports because Hodges had “actual notice of the documents and relied on

them in framing her Complaint.” Appellants Br. at 47. Even assuming both of those assertions

were true (which we do not decide), the officers’ proposed exception to Rule 12(d) is

unsupported. For their argument, the officers rely exclusively on a Second Circuit case where

the court wrote in what is arguably dicta that, although the district court had not in fact

considered the extra-complaint materials and therefore (contrary to the plaintiff-appellants’

assertion) did not err by doing so, the district court could have considered the materials had it so

chosen. Cortec Indus., Inc. v. Sum Holding L.P., 949 F.2d 42, 48 (2d Cir. 1991).

The district court did not err by declining to consider the CAD and Incident Reports. The

officers’ exhortation that we should consider the video evidence and reports is a naked attempt to

introduce improper substantive evidence at the motion-to-dismiss stage and in contravention of

our proper appellate jurisdiction. The officers have not shown that any exception to Rule 12(d)

applies so as to permit this end-run around the law governing motions to dismiss and final

judgments.

C. Qualified Immunity

Having determined the proper scope of the record on appeal, we must now determine

whether Hodges has plausibly alleged that the officers violated Honestie’s clearly established

rights. Marvaso, 971 F.3d at 605. For the reasons discussed above, we may do so based only on

the complaint’s allegations, and not the information presented in the video or the reports.

Hodges alleges that the officers violated Honestie’s Fourth Amendment rights by unreasonably

seizing and searching her when they held her at gunpoint, handcuffed her, and put her in the

police cruiser, R. 1 (Compl. ¶¶ 114–15) (Page ID #14), by falsely imprisoning Honestie when

they handcuffed her and put her in the back of the police cruiser, id. ¶¶ 118–26 (Page ID #15),

and by subjecting her to excessive force when they detained her at gunpoint and handcuffed her,

id. ¶¶ 132–45 (Page ID #16–17).

No. 24-1615 Hodges v. City of Grand Rapids, Mich. et al. Page 19

1. Unreasonable Search and Seizure

No one disputes that the officers detained or seized Honestie without her consent. See

Appellants Br. at 26. Hodges alleges that all three officers took part in the seizure: Sellner by

detaining Honestie at gunpoint, R. 1 (Compl. ¶¶ 51–52, 56) (Page ID #7–8), Barberino by

handcuffing her, id. ¶¶ 58–60, 63 (Page ID #8), and Dionne by putting her in the police cruiser,

id. ¶¶ 71, 76 (Page ID #9). At the very least, officers must have reasonable suspicion for such an

investigative (Terry) stop, and, if the stop evolves into an arrest, officers must have probable

cause. Bey v. Falk, 946 F.3d 304, 312–13 (6th Cir. 2019). We begin with reasonable suspicion

because if officers lack reasonable suspicion, they necessarily lack probable cause. See id.

“[R]easonable suspicion exists when, based on the totality of the circumstances, a police officer

has a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal

activity.” Id. at 313 (alteration in Bey) (quoting United States v. Gross, 662 F.3d 393, 399 (6th

Cir. 2011)).

The complaint alleges that Honestie did not match the description of the suspect the

officers were pursuing and that, at the time of the seizure, Honestie did not make “any

movements to signal that [she] w[as] fleeing the police, attempting to evade the officers on the

scene,” she “was not armed, believed to be armed, . . . [did not] pose any immediate threat or

danger to anyone,” and she “did not make any movements that caused a threat to any of the

GRPD officers on scene.” R. 1 (Compl. ¶¶ 67, 78–82, 122–23) (Page ID #8–9, 15). These

factual allegations go beyond bare legal conclusions and make plausible the complaint’s

allegation that the officers lacked a “particularized and objective basis for suspecting” Honestie

of criminal activity. Bey, 946 F.3d at 313 (quotation omitted). If proven at trial, such facts

support “the reasonable inference that the defendant[s]” lacked reasonable suspicion and violated

Honestie’s Fourth-Amendment rights. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.7

7

The complaint does not support the officers’ argument that they acted reasonably to secure a dangerous

and unpredictable scene. See R. 1 (Compl. ¶ 67) (Page ID #8) (“Neither Honestie, [Aisha], nor Whitney Hodges

made any movements to signal that they were fleeing the police, attempting to evade the officers on the scene, or

were an immediate threat to anyone.”). The officers may introduce factual evidence in support of their argument

that the scene was dangerous at the summary-judgment stage and at trial. For this reason (among others), the

officers’ citation to Wyatt v. Blair, Appellants Br. at 22–25, is inapposite given that there, unlike here, evidence of

the potential danger confronting officers was properly before the state court when it conducted a summary-

No. 24-1615 Hodges v. City of Grand Rapids, Mich. et al. Page 20

Our case law underscores that, absent reason to believe a detainee has committed a crime

(for example, when the detainee matches a suspect’s description), and absent a threat to others on

the scene or an indication that a prospective detainee intends to flee or assault officers, there is

no reasonable suspicion for even a temporary stop. See United States v. Noble, 762 F.3d 509,

523 (6th Cir. 2014) (holding no reasonable suspicion existed where there was no evidence that

detainee “gave [officers] any reason to suspect that he was inclined to assault the officers, . . .

had anything in his hands[,] . . . indicated that he had a weapon, or . . . behaved in a threatening

manner”); United States v. Jackson, 188 F. App’x 403, 409 (6th Cir. 2006) (holding that no

reasonable suspicion for stop existed where officers “stopped a car that was a different make and

model from that being sought, traveling in the wrong direction, and that was driven by an

individual who did not match the physical description of the suspect”). This case law

demonstrates that the complaint here adequately alleges a plausible violation of Honestie’s

clearly established right to be free from detention absent at least reasonable suspicion.

2. False Imprisonment or Arrest

An officer commits false arrest or imprisonment in violation of the Fourth Amendment

when they “effect[] a warrantless arrest without probable cause.” Akima v. Peca, 85 F.4th 416,

422–23 (6th Cir. 2023). “Probable cause exists if a person of ‘reasonable caution,’ considering

‘the facts and circumstances within’ the officer’s knowledge, would ‘believe that an offense had

been, was being, or was about to be committed.’” Id. (quoting Hartman v. Thompson, 931 F.3d

471, 481 (6th Cir. 2019)). As discussed above, the complaint plausibly alleges that Barberino

and Dionne had no reason to believe that Honestie was dangerous, would flee, or was involved in

the commission of a crime, given that she did not match the stabbing suspect’s description. The

complaint thus adequately pleads that officers had neither probable cause nor reasonable

suspicion to arrest Honestie. The complaint also states facts giving rise to the plausible inference

that Honestie was indeed arrested.

judgment-like analysis to determine whether a genuine issue of material fact existed, Wyatt v. Blair, No. 259750,

2006 WL 2135761, at *2 (Mich. Ct. App. Aug. 1, 2006). Similarly unavailing is the officers’ argument that they

were conducting something akin to a reasonable protective sweep of the scene because Whitney, rather than

Honestie, matched the description of the stabbing suspect. See Appellants Br. at 30–31. The complaint contains no

allegations about Whitney’s physical appearance and whether she matched the description of the suspect.

No. 24-1615 Hodges v. City of Grand Rapids, Mich. et al. Page 21

An investigative stop of the kind the officers concededly effected on Honestie “may . . .

ripen into an arrest through the passage of time or the use of force.” Houston v. Clark Cnty.

Sheriff Deputy John Does 1–5, 174 F.3d 809, 814 (6th Cir. 1999). “Although there is no bright

line that distinguishes an investigative stop from a de facto arrest, . . . the length and manner of

an investigative stop should be reasonably related to the basis for the initial intrusion.” Id.

(citations omitted). Commentators have written that “a seizure is an arrest rather than a Terry

detention if ‘a reasonable person in the suspect’s position would have understood the situation to

constitute a restraint on freedom of movement of the degree which the law associates with

formal arrest.’” 3 Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 5.1(a) (6th ed. 2024) (quoting United

States v. Corral-Franco, 848 F.2d 536, 540 (5th Cir. 1988)). We have held that neither “the use

of handcuffs” nor “detention in a police cruiser . . . automatically transform a[n] [investigative]

stop into an arrest” “so long as the circumstances warrant th[ose] precaution[s].” Houston, 174

F.3d at 815. The complaint must therefore plausibly allege that the detention of Honestie was

“qualitatively and quantitatively . . . so intrusive with respect to [Honestie]’s freedom of

movement and privacy interests as to trigger the full protection of the Fourth and Fourteenth

Amendments.” Centanni v. Eight Unknown Officers, 15 F.3d 587, 590 (6th Cir. 1994) (quoting

Hayes v. Florida, 470 U.S. 811, 815–16 (1985)).

Although it is a closer question than the existence of probable cause, we hold that the

complaint alleges facts giving rise to the plausible inference that the manner in which Barberino

and Dionne detained Honestie—by handcuffing her and putting her in the police car,

respectively—was so disproportionate to their reasons for detaining her that, for Fourth

Amendment purposes, it transformed her detention into an arrest. This conclusion is necessarily

informed by the fact that, accepting the complaint’s allegations as true, officers had neither

reasonable suspicion nor probable cause to detain Honestie. Sutton v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville

& Davidson Cnty., 700 F.3d 865, 876 (6th Cir. 2012) (“A broader factual base of suspicion

permits a broader scope of detention because . . . ‘[t]he scope of activities permitted during an

investigative stop is determined by the circumstances that initially justified the stop.’” (quoting

United States v. Obasa, 15 F.3d 603, 607 (6th Cir. 1994))). A reasonable person in Honestie’s

No. 24-1615 Hodges v. City of Grand Rapids, Mich. et al. Page 22

position, as an eleven-year-old child detained at gunpoint,8 handcuffed, and put in the back of a

police cruiser, could reasonably “underst[and] the situation to constitute a restraint on freedom of

movement of the degree which the law associates with formal arrest.” LaFave, 3 Search and

Seizure § 5.1(a) (quoting Corral-Franco, 848 F.2d at 540).

“It is beyond doubt that,” at the time of Honestie’s alleged arrest, “‘the law was clearly

established that, absent probable cause to believe that an offense had been committed, was being

committed, or was about to be committed, officers may not arrest an individual.’” Radvansky v.

City of Olmsted Falls, 395 F.3d 291, 310 (6th Cir. 2005) (quoting Dietrich v. Burrows, 167 F.3d

1007, 1012 (6th Cir. 1999)). As discussed above, the complaint plausibly alleges that Barberino

and Dionne did just that. At the motion-to-dismiss phase, this is sufficient to avoid dismissal on

qualified-immunity grounds. See Evans-Marshall, 428 F.3d at 234–35 (Sutton, J., concurring)

(“Individual defendants . . . will only rarely be able to establish that the right was not ‘clearly

established’ at this stage of the dispute. . . . Absent any factual development beyond the

allegations in a complaint, a court cannot fairly tell whether a case is ‘obvious’ or ‘squarely

govern[ed]’ by precedent, which prevents us from determining whether the facts of this case

parallel a prior decision or not.”); accord Hart, 973 F.3d at 642.

3. Excessive Force

In determining whether an officer used excessive force in violation of the Fourth

Amendment, “[t]he bottom-line inquiry is ‘whether the totality of the circumstances justifies a

particular level of force.’” Wright v. City of Euclid, 962 F.3d 852, 865 (6th Cir. 2020) (quoting

Coffey v. Carroll, 933 F.3d 577, 588 (6th Cir. 2019)). Three factors guide this inquiry: “[1] the

severity of the crime at issue, [2] whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of

the officers or others, and [3] whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest

by flight.” Id. (quoting Shreve v. Jessamine Cnty. Fiscal Ct., 453 F.3d 681, 687 (6th Cir. 2006)).

We ask “whether the officers’ actions [were] objectively reasonable in light of the facts and

8

Although the complaint does not allege specifically that Honestie’s detention at gunpoint (prior to the

handcuffing) constituted false arrest, it is certainly one of the circumstances a court would consider in assessing

whether the investigative stop ripened into an arrest. See 3 LaFave, Search and Seizure § 5.1(a); Houston, 174 F.3d

at 814–15.

No. 24-1615 Hodges v. City of Grand Rapids, Mich. et al. Page 23

circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation.” Id.

(quoting Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 397 (1989)). “When more than one officer is

involved, the court must consider each officer’s entitlement to qualified immunity separately.”

Smith v. City of Troy, 874 F.3d 938, 944 (6th Cir. 2017) (per curiam).

Historically, this Circuit’s precedent required the court to “segment the incident into its

constituent parts and consider the officer’s entitlement to qualified immunity at each step along

the way.” Id. We would “carve up the incident into segments and judge each on its own terms

to see if the officer was reasonable at each stage.” Dickerson v. McClellan, 101 F.3d 1151, 1161

(6th Cir. 1996) (quoting Plakas v. Drinski, 19 F.3d 1143, 1150 (7th Cir. 1994)); id. at 1162

(limiting the scope of inquiry to “the moments preceding the [police] shooting” and excluding all

prior events). But the Supreme Court’s recent holding in Barnes v. Felix, 605 U.S. ___ (2025)

makes clear that such a segmented approach inappropriately “constricts the proper inquiry into

the ‘totality of the circumstances.’” Slip Op. at 4.

In Barnes, the defendant officer pulled a driver over for a traffic stop. Id. at 2. When, in

the midst of the stop, the car began to pull away with the driver’s door open, the officer jumped

onto the door sill and in a matter of seconds fired two shots into the car, killing the driver. Id.

The lower courts had been bound by Fifth Circuit precedent to consider the officer’s

reasonableness only in light of the situation existing at the moment of the threat. Id. at 3. The

lower courts determined that the moment of the threat was confined to the two seconds between

when the officer jumped on the door sill and when he fired his first shot, and that it did not

include the circumstances of the preceding traffic stop. Id. at 3.

The Supreme Court held that this moment-of-threat approach was erroneous because “the

‘totality of the circumstances’ inquiry into a use of force has no time limit.” Id. at 5.

Acknowledging that “the situation at the precise time of the shooting will often be what matters

most,” the Court wrote that “earlier facts and circumstances may bear on how a reasonable

officer would have understood and responded to later ones.” Id. Events immediately preceding

a use of force “cannot be hermetically sealed off from the context in which they arose.” Id. at 5–

6 (quoting Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae at 14). “[N]o rule that precludes

consideration of prior events in assessing a police shooting is reconcilable with the fact-

No. 24-1615 Hodges v. City of Grand Rapids, Mich. et al. Page 24

dependent and context-sensitive approach [the Court] ha[s] prescribed.” Id. at 7 (“A court

deciding a use-of-force case cannot review the totality of the circumstances if it has put on

chronological blinders.”).

With the Supreme Court’s guidance in mind, we must consider whether Hodges has

plausibly alleged that, under the totality of the circumstances—including all of the events

preceding Honestie’s detention—the officers used excessive force. Hart, 973 F.3d at 639–42.

Hodges alleges that the defendants used excessive force on Honestie, Sellner by “drawing and

pointing . . . [a] [gun] directly towards an unarmed child,” R. 1 (Compl. ¶ 137, 146) (Page ID

#16–17), and Barberino by handcuffing her, id. ¶ 138, 146 (Page ID #16–17). We are again

limited to the facts asserted in the complaint in applying the above-recited factors to this

allegation.

Where the seriousness of the crime is concerned, the complaint’s allegations state only

that “GRPD was looking for an adult Caucasian woman who had allegedly stabbed another

individual at a different location.” Id. ¶ 78 (Page ID #9). This is far from an allegation that the

stabbing actually happened, but we assume the crime at issue was a stabbing—a serious and

violent crime. Although this first prong weighs in favor of the officers’ use of force, the

remaining two prongs do not. The complaint expressly avers that Honestie posed no threat to

officers or anyone else and showed no signs of resisting or attempting to evade arrest. Id.

¶¶ 141, 143 (Page ID #17). Nonetheless, the complaint alleges, the officers used force on

Honestie by holding her at gunpoint and handcuffing her. Id. ¶¶ 137–46 (Page ID #16–17). This

allegation gives rise to the plausible inference that each defendant acted in a manner objectively

unreasonable under the circumstances.

It is clearly established that holding a detainee at gunpoint and in handcuffs constitutes

the use of force.9 Vanderhoef v. Dixon, 938 F.3d 271, 277 (6th Cir. 2019). “We have recognized

9

The allegations in this case, which aver that the officers unreasonably used a gun and handcuffs to execute

an unlawful arrest, distinguish it from our excessive-force precedents regarding the use of handcuffs alone to effect a

lawful arrest. See Neague v. Cynkar, 258 F.3d 504, 508 (6th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he handcuffing of a person in the

course of an otherwise lawful arrest fails, as a matter of law, to state a claim for excessive force.” (emphasis

added)); see also Binay v. Bettendorf, 601 F.3d 640, 648–50 (6th Cir. 2010) (holding officers were not entitled to

qualified immunity on claims that they used excessive force by unnecessarily holding the plaintiffs at gunpoint and

in handcuffs, despite having done so while executing a lawful search warrant).

No. 24-1615 Hodges v. City of Grand Rapids, Mich. et al. Page 25

that ‘pointing a firearm at an individual and making a demand of that individual . . .

communicates the implicit threat that if the individual does not comply with the [] demands, the

[one pointing the firearm] will shoot the individual.’” Id. (alterations in Vanderhoef) (quoting

United States v. Bolden, 479 F.3d 455, 461 (6th Cir. 2007)). And it is clearly established that the

same conduct can constitute excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment if it is

objectively unreasonable under the circumstances. Binay v. Bettendorf, 601 F.3d 640, 649–50

(6th Cir. 2010) (holding that plaintiffs alleged sufficient facts to show excessive force where the

plaintiffs, who were held at gunpoint and handcuffed, “had no criminal record, cooperated

throughout the ordeal, posed no immediate threat to the officers, and did not resist arrest or

attempt to flee”); see also Vanderhoef, 938 F.3d at 277–78.

“[T]he fact that it is sometimes reasonable to use handcuffs and guns when detaining

suspects does not support Defendants’ argument that the amount of force used in this case was

objectively reasonable. Whether an exercise of force is excessive will vary depending on the

facts and circumstances of the specific case.” Binay, 601 F.3d at 649–50. Defendants will have

an opportunity to explain to the district court or a jury why the facts and circumstances justified

their use of force, but Hodges has plausibly alleged that Sellner and Barberino each violated

Honestie’s clearly established right to be free from excessive force.

****

The officers concede that “the totality of the all the circumstances, including the

information that the officers had before they interacted with Honestie, is critical to determining

whether they should have known that their actions violated a clearly established right.” Reply

Br. at 13. We agree, which is why this case should be resolved after the parties have exchanged

discovery.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s order finding that Hodges

plausibly alleged that the officers violated Honestie’s clearly established rights. To the extent

the officers ask us to resolve disputed factual issues about whether the officers in fact had

No. 24-1615 Hodges v. City of Grand Rapids, Mich. et al. Page 26

reasonable suspicion or probable cause to detain Honestie or whether their use of force was in

fact reasonable under the circumstances, we DISMISS their appeal for lack of jurisdiction.