# Weigel v. Broad > Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · October 21, 2008 · 544 F.3d 1143 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9437931 ## Case - **Full name:** Glenn WEIGEL and David Weigel, Individually and as Co-Personal Representatives of the Estate of Bruce James Weigel, Deceased, Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. John K. BROAD, Individually; And Devan Henderson, Individually, Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants. the Wyoming Highway Patrol; Colonel John Cox, Individually and in His Official Capacity; And John Does I-X, Individually and in Their Official Capacities, Defendants - **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit - **Decided:** October 21, 2008 - **Citations:** 544 F.3d 1143; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 21877; 2008 WL 4631920 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurrence by Hartz - **Judges:** Hartz, Seymour, O'Brien - **Cited by:** 174 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9437931 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - holding officer not entitled to qualified immunity at summary judgment stage where he applied pressure to detainee's back for "about three minutes" after hands and feet had been restrained and noting "the law was clearly established that applying pressure to [a person's] upper… - explaining that application of pressure to detainee’s back for “about three minutes” after detainee’s hands and feet had been restrained—it becoming clear that the “pressure was unnecessary to restrain him”—created a significant risk of positional asphyxiation that violated cl… - 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 … - holding that where the suspect fled through oncoming traffic and never ceased to vigorously struggle after being caught, it was reasonable to pin the suspect to the ground, but unreasonable to keep the suspect pinned once he was no longer a legitimate flight risk - holding use of prone restraint on handcuffed suspect with leg restraints constituted excessive force because there the decedent “was subjected to such pressure for a significant period after it was clear that the pressure was unnecessary to restrain him” ## Opinion text HARTZ, Circuit Judge, concurring: I concur in the result and all of Judge Seymour’s opinion except on one point. I do not think that the defendants violated Mr. Weigel’s constitutional rights before his legs were bound. In light of Mr. Weig-el’s strength and previous behavior, it was not, in my view, unreasonable of the officers to keep him in a prone position with weight on his upper back so long as the only restraint on his legs was the weight of a bystander sitting on them. Nevertheless, Trooper Henderson initially testified that Mr. Weigel’s feet were bound when he went to his patrol car; and a jury could find that Trooper Broad applied pressure to Mr. Weigel’s upper back for as much as three minutes after his feet were bound. That finding would support a verdict that Mr. Weigel was subjected to unconstitutional force. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9437931. Public record. Not legal advice.