“[I]n August 2006, the principle of law was already clearly established that use of pepper spray on an arrestee who was not accused of a serious crime, was not posing an immediate threat to the safety of the officer or others, and was not actively resisting arrest or seeking to flee is constitutionally unreasonable.”
How later courts described this case
- “[I]n August 2006, the principle of law was already clearly established that use of pepper spray on an arrestee who was not accused of a serious crime, was not posing an immediate threat to the safety of the officer or others, and was not actively resisting arrest or seeking to flee is constitutionally unreasonable.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HELENE N. WHITE, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
I join in the majority’s reversal of the district court’s grant of summary judgment to defendants on Howard’s excessive force claim and its discussion of the qualified-immunity issue. I also join in the majority’s conclusion that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to defendants on Howard’s claim of false arrest/malicious prosecution.