finding that handcuffing the plaintiff whose behavior, included shouting, refusing to raise his hands, and failing generally to comply with police orders, which made him “appear uncooperative,” was not excessive
How later courts described this case
- finding that handcuffing the plaintiff whose behavior, included shouting, refusing to raise his hands, and failing generally to comply with police orders, which made him “appear uncooperative,” was not excessive
- explaining that where “the use of force [is] not objectively unreasonable” it is “therefore not constitutionally excessive”
- recognizing that forced entry was justified after officers heard "the sound of running feet"
- “In the ensuing confusion, a brief detention to question Mr. Mensh’s assertions, reevaluate the situation and secure the scene was prudent and ‘objectively reasonable.’ ”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
KAUFMAN, Senior District Judge,
dissenting:
I would affirm the refusal of the district judge to grant summary judgment for the reasons stated by him in his Memorandum Opinion filed July 12, 1990. Whether ex *41 cessive force and/or unreasonable continuance of detention occurred — and if so, which of the defendants, if any, violated plaintiffs’ rights — present factual issues which, in my view, at least entitle plaintiffs to conduct discovery. Excessive force and/or unreasonable continuance of detention can violate constitutional rights of persons subjected to the same. See Johnson v. Morel, 876 F.2d 477 (5th Cir.1989); Wilkins v. May, 872 F.2d 190 (7th Cir.1989). Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.