finding that a police officer who tackled the plaintiff was entitled to qualified immunity on the plaintiff’s excessive force claim, where, given the particular facts of that case, the violation was not obvious and no precedent “squarely govern[ed] the case here” (quoting Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194, 201 (2004))
How later courts described this case
- finding that a police officer who tackled the plaintiff was entitled to qualified immunity on the plaintiff’s excessive force claim, where, given the particular facts of that case, the violation was not obvious and no precedent “squarely govern[ed] the case here” (quoting Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194, 201 (2004))
- finding that tackling of plaintiff did not amount to excessive force when the officer responded to a distressed call for backup help from a fellow officer and entered the house to find the plaintiff and the officer in close proximity and yelling at each other
- holding that the Fourth Amendment bars too-tight handcuffing where a plaintiff 17 demonstrates some physical injury from the handcuffing and officers ignored complaints
- holding that violation of a No. 16-2102 Sumpter v. Wayne Cty. Page 14 “‘clearly established’ constitutional right” occurs “where the violation was sufficiently ‘obvious’ under the general standards of constitutional care”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
GIBBONS, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I agree with all of Judge Sutton’s main opinion except its conclusion in Part II.C.l. that there is no genuine issue of fact as to whether Officer Foubert’s conduct in tackling Lyons was a violation of her Fourth Amendment rights. In my view, the evidence presented by Lyons permits a jury finding that Foubert did not have a reasonable basis for believing that Officer Keith’s safety depended on his use of physical force against Lyons in the form of tackling. Thus, I do not believe that the issue of whether Foubert unconstitutionally used excessive force can be resolved in the summary judgment context. Nevertheless, because I agree that Foubert is entitled to qualified immunity on the tackling claim for the reasons stated in Judge Sutton’s opinion, I concur. I also concur in Judge Sutton’s separate concurring opinion.