[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-14713

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 6:14-cv-01052-CEM-DAB

JAMES ERIC JONES, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

EDWARD MICHAEL, 

ALBERTO NEGRON NIEVES, 

CITY OF ORLANDO, 

 Defendants - Appellants.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(July 7, 2016)

Case: 15-14713 Date Filed: 07/07/2016 Page: 1 of 22 
2

Before HULL, MARCUS, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

In this interlocutory appeal, Defendants Police Officers Edward Michael and 

Alberto Negron Nieves (“Officer Negron”) appeal the district court’s denial of 

their motion for summary judgment in Plaintiffs’ civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. Plaintiffs James Jones, Charles Schaefer, and Spencer Bass assert claims 

against Defendant Officers for false arrest and for excessive force, in violation of 

the Fourth Amendment. Defendants contend they are entitled to qualified 

immunity.1

 Reversible error has been shown; we affirm in part and vacate in part 

and remand. 

Background:

This appeal arises out of Plaintiffs’ arrests in January 2012, while Plaintiffs 

were in Orlando on business. At about 11pm on the night of the arrests, Plaintiffs 

and between 15 and 23 co-workers arrived at a karaoke bar located within 

 1 The district court also denied the City of Orlando’s motion for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ 

state law claims for assault and battery; we decline to exercise pendant appellate jurisdiction over 

the City’s appeal of that non-final order. For background, see Leslie v. Hancock Cnty. Bd. of 

Educ., 720 F.3d 1338, 1344-45 (11th Cir. 2013). 

Case: 15-14713 Date Filed: 07/07/2016 Page: 2 of 22 
3

Universal Studios City Walk. Earlier in the evening, Plaintiffs had each had one to 

three drinks. And, while at the karaoke bar, Plaintiffs each consumed another one 

and a half to two drinks. Other members of Plaintiffs’ group were also drinking 

that night and at least one co-worker was described by Plaintiffs as drunk. 

After members of Plaintiffs’ party twice violated the karaoke bar’s policy 

about the number of people permitted on stage, Defendant Officers told Plaintiffs’ 

party to leave the bar. Schaefer objected to having to leave, and he was told again 

to leave the bar. Schaefer began to leave, but then attempted to return to the bar 

area to retrieve a credit card left by a co-worker. One of the officers told Schaefer 

again that he needed to “get out of here.” Schaefer then moved toward the exit and 

stood right at the “doorjamb,” waiting for his co-worker to get the credit card. One 

of the officers said “this is it, you’re done,” told Schaefer he was under arrest, and 

attempted to place Schaefer in handcuffs. 

As Defendant Officers grabbed Schaefer’s arms, Schaefer slipped out of his 

sport coat and, thus, out of Defendant Officers’ grasp. Schaefer then ran several 

feet before being tackled to the ground by a security officer. A struggle ensued, 

after which Schaefer was handcuffed. 

Meanwhile, several of Schaefer’s co-workers -- including Bass and Jones --

crowded around the area where Defendant Officers were attempting to handcuff 

Schaefer. The crowd appeared visibly upset by and hostile to Schaefer’s arrest. 

Case: 15-14713 Date Filed: 07/07/2016 Page: 3 of 22 
4

Briefly stated, Bass approached in what could easily have been seen as a 

threatening and confrontational manner the spot where Schaefer was being 

restrained, and Bass was pushed back repeatedly by two security officers. At 

times, a member of Plaintiffs’ party physically held Bass back from continuing to 

confront the security officers. Jones also moved close to where Schaefer lay on the 

ground. Jones says he was attempting to record the events using his cell phone. 

Bass and Jones were both ultimately arrested.2

Qualified Immunity:

We review de novo a district court’s denial of a motion for summary 

judgment based on qualified immunity, “drawing all inferences and viewing all of 

the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Gilmore v. 

Hodges, 738 F.3d 266, 272 (11th Cir. 2013). Because we construe the evidence in 

favor of the nonmoving party, “material issues of disputed fact are not a factor in 

the court’s analysis of qualified immunity and cannot foreclose the grant or denial 

of summary judgment based on qualified immunity.” Bates v. Lee, 518 F.3d 1233, 

1239 (11th Cir. 2008). 

 2 Helpful to our review in this case, surveillance cameras captured the pertinent events outside 

the karaoke bar after Schaefer’s initial encounter with Defendant Officers and after Schaefer 

“slipped” out of his sport coat. We consider the video depiction of the parties’ conduct that 

night, but note that the video contains no audio component. 

Case: 15-14713 Date Filed: 07/07/2016 Page: 4 of 22 
5

When the nonmoving party’s version of the facts, however, “is blatantly 

contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court 

should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for 

summary judgment.” Scott v. Harris, 127 S. Ct. 1769, 1776 (2007). For instance, 

when a video recording exists of the pertinent events -- as in this case -- we 

“view[] the facts in the light depicted by the videotape.” Id. 

“Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials 

sued in their individual capacities if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly 

established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would 

have known.’” Vinyard v. Wilson, 311 F.3d 1340, 1346 (11th Cir. 2002). “When 

properly applied, [qualified immunity] protects ‘all but the plainly incompetent or 

those who knowingly violate the law.’” Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 131 S. Ct. 2074, 2085 

(2011).

To avoid summary judgment based on qualified immunity, a plaintiff must 

show both that the defendant violated a constitutional right and that the right was 

already clearly established -- given the circumstances -- when defendant acted. 

Lee v. Ferraro, 284 F.3d 1188, 1194 (11th Cir. 2002). A federal right is “clearly 

established” when “the contours of [the] right are sufficiently clear that every 

reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that 

right.” al-Kidd, 131 S. Ct. at 2083 (quotations omitted). “We do not require a case 

Case: 15-14713 Date Filed: 07/07/2016 Page: 5 of 22 
6

directly on point, but existing precedent must have placed the statutory or 

constitutional question beyond debate.” Mullinex v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305, 308 

(2015) (emphasis added). In determining whether the law is clearly established, 

courts must consider “whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly 

established . . . in the light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad 

general proposition.” Id. (emphasis in original). 

False Arrest Claims:

Broadly speaking, a warrantless arrest made without probable cause violates 

the Fourth Amendment. See Ortega v. Christian, 85 F.3d 1521, 1525 (11th Cir. 

1996). An officer has probable cause to arrest when, “at the moment the arrest was 

made . . . the facts and circumstances within [the officer’s] knowledge and of 

which [the officer] had reasonably trustworthy information were sufficient to 

warrant a prudent man in believing that the [accused] had committed or was 

committing an offense.” Beck v. Ohio, 85 S. Ct. 223, 225 (1964). 

“[P]robable cause requires only a probability or substantial chance of 

criminal activity, not an actual showing of such activity.” Illinois v. Gates, 103 S. 

Ct. 213, 243 n.13 (1983). Thus, “innocent behavior will frequently provide the 

basis for a showing of probable cause.” Id. “The Constitution does not guarantee 

Case: 15-14713 Date Filed: 07/07/2016 Page: 6 of 22 
7

that only the guilty will be arrested.” Baker v. McCollan, 99 S. Ct. 2689, 2695 

(1979); see also Pierson v. Ray, 87 S. Ct. 1213, 1218 (1967) (“a peace officer who 

arrests someone with probable cause is not liable for false arrest simply because 

the innocence of the suspect is later proved.”). 

“To receive qualified immunity, an officer need not have actual probable 

cause, but only ‘arguable’ probable cause.” Brown v. City of Huntsville, 608 F.3d 

724, 734 (11th Cir. 2010). In determining whether arguable probable cause exists, 

the issue is not whether the plaintiff was in fact guilty of the charged offense, but 

rather, whether “reasonable officers in the same circumstances and possessing the 

same knowledge as the Defendants could have believed that probable cause existed 

to arrest Plaintiff[s].” Id.; see also Post v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 7 F.3d 1552, 

1557-58 (11th Cir. 1993). 

The reasonable-officer standard is an objective one; we do not consider the 

officer’s subjective intent. Brown, 608 F.3d at 735. Thus, an officer’s “subjective 

reason for making the arrest need not be the criminal offense as to which the 

known facts provide probable cause.” Devenpeck v. Alford, 125 S. Ct. 588, 594 

(2004). “Whether an officer possesses probable cause or arguable probable cause 

depends on the elements of the alleged crime and the operative fact pattern.” 

Brown, 608 F.3d at 735. 

Case: 15-14713 Date Filed: 07/07/2016 Page: 7 of 22 
8

a. Schaefer

Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Schaefer, probable cause 

existed to arrest Schaefer for trespass. Under Florida law, a person commits 

trespass when he, in pertinent part, remains on property after being notified by

actual communication that his remaining on the property was forbidden. Fla. Stat. 

§ 810.09(1)(a)(1). 

Schaefer was told repeatedly by Defendant Officers to leave the bar. Instead 

of complying with Defendant Officers’ orders, however, Schaefer objected to 

leaving and, at one point, sought to return to the bar area. At the moment 

Defendant Officers placed Schaefer under arrest, Schaefer remained standing in the 

“doorjamb” area of the bar. In the light of these facts, Defendant Officers had 

probable cause -- and certainly arguable probable cause -- to arrest Schaefer for 

remaining illegally on property, after receiving notice to depart, in violation of 

Florida law. 

The district court reasoned that, because Schaefer was outside when he was 

arrested, he was not remaining willfully inside the bar and, thus, no arguable 

probable case existed to arrest him for trespass. As an initial matter, the district 

court clearly erred in finding that Schaefer was outside the bar when he was 

arrested. Schaefer admitted that he was in fact standing in the “doorjamb” or 

Case: 15-14713 Date Filed: 07/07/2016 Page: 8 of 22 
9

“entryway” of the bar when Defendant Officers first told him he was under arrest 

and attempted to handcuff him. That Schaefer was several feet outside the bar 

when he was chased down and ultimately handcuffed has no bearing on whether 

probable cause existed to arrest Schaefer for an earlier completed trespass. 

Moreover, whether Schaefer was in fact guilty of trespass is not pertinent to our 

qualified immunity analysis. See, e.g., Post, 7 F.3d at 1557-58. Given all the facts 

and circumstances, objective officers in Defendant Officers’ place could have 

believed reasonably -- when they told Schaefer that he was under arrest -- that 

Schaefer was remaining willfully in an area where he had been told to leave. 

Probable cause also existed to arrest Schaefer for resisting an officer without 

violence, in violation of Fla. Stat. § 843.02. To prove a violation of section 

843.02, the state must show two things: “(1) the officer was engaged in the lawful 

execution of a legal duty; and (2) the action by the defendant constituted 

obstruction or resistance of the lawful duty.” H.A.P. v. State of Fla., 834 So. 2d 

237, 238 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002). The statute prohibits only “conduct that 

physically obstructs or opposes an officer in the performance of lawful duties”: 

speech alone is not enough. Wilkerson v. State of Fla., 556 So. 2d 453, 455-56 

(Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990). 

The parties do not dispute that Defendant Officers were engaged in the 

execution of a legal duty when they attempted to arrest Schaefer. And Schaefer’s 

Case: 15-14713 Date Filed: 07/07/2016 Page: 9 of 22 
10

conduct -- coming out of his jacket, running several feet away from Defendant 

Officers, and struggling as Defendant Officers attempted to handcuff him -- clearly 

physically impeded Defendant Officers’ efforts to carry out that duty. Thus, 

probable cause existed to arrest Schaefer for resisting.

Even accepting Schaefer’s version of the story as true -- that he merely 

(unintentionally) “slipped out of [his] sport coat” and was not attempting to flee --

Schaefer’s subjective intent is not pertinent to our determination of whether a 

reasonable officer under the circumstances could have concluded that probable 

cause existed to arrest. See Jordan v. Mosley, 487 F.3d 1350, 1355 (11th Cir. 

2007) (“no police officer can truly know another person’s subjective intent” and, 

thus, an arresting officer needs no specific evidence of a suspect’s intent before 

determining that probable cause exists to support an arrest). Moreover, that 

Schaefer slipped out of Defendant Officers’ grasp and ran several feet is some 

evidence that Schaefer in fact intended to avoid arrest. See id. (“‘Acts indicate the 

intention’ is an old maxim” (citation and alteration omitted)). 

Construing the evidence in the light most favorable to Schaefer, Defendant 

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from Schaefer’s claims for false arrest.

Case: 15-14713 Date Filed: 07/07/2016 Page: 10 of 22 
11

b. Bass

Probable cause also existed to arrest Bass for battery on a licensed security 

officer, in violation of Fla. Stat. § 784.07(2). Under Florida law, “any intentional 

touching, no matter how slight, is sufficient to constitute” a “battery” for purposes 

of section 784.07. State v. Hearns, 961 So. 2d 211, 218-19 (Fla. 2007). 

The surveillance video shows clearly Bass attempting to approach the spot 

where Schaefer was being handcuffed and Bass being pushed back repeatedly by 

two different security officers. The video also shows Bass using his hands and 

body to move the security officers’ arms away from him. This “intentional 

touching” was sufficient to establish probable cause to arrest Bass for battery. See 

id. That Officer Negron did not see -- and that the surveillance video does not 

show conclusively -- Bass shoving the female security officer and causing her to 

stumble is immaterial. Officer Negron is entitled to qualified immunity from 

Bass’s false arrest claim.3

 

 3 Because probable cause existed to arrest Bass for battery on a licensed security officer, we need 

not decide whether probable cause (or arguable probable cause) also existed to arrest Bass for 

resisting an officer without violence or for misuse of the 911 system.

Case: 15-14713 Date Filed: 07/07/2016 Page: 11 of 22 
12

c. Jones

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Jones, arguable probable 

cause existed to arrest Jones for resisting without violence, in violation of Fla. Stat. 

§ 843.02. The surveillance video shows Jones -- only seconds after Schaefer was 

tackled to the ground -- advance toward the police near the spot where Schaefer is 

being handcuffed and Jones being pushed back by a security officer. Jones took a 

few steps back from the security officer, took out his cell phone, and advanced 

again toward the security officer, holding up his cell phone. The security officer 

pushed Jones back a second time, and Jones appears to use his arm to move the 

security officer’s arms away. Jones then walked to the other side of where 

Schaefer was being handcuffed. Jones stood about ten to fifteen feet from 

Schaefer, where Jones continued to record the events on his cell phone. A second 

security officer then stepped directly in front of Jones, blocking Jones from 

advancing further toward Schaefer. The security officer stayed immediately in 

front of Jones and moved with Jones as Jones moved from side-to-side to avoid the 

officer’s block. As Officer Negron stepped forward from where Schaefer had just 

been handcuffed, Jones moved over, close to Officer Negron. As Jones and 

Officer Negron stood face-to-face only a couple of feet apart, Officer Negron 

sprayed Jones with pepper spray. Although Jones testified that the security officer 

Case: 15-14713 Date Filed: 07/07/2016 Page: 12 of 22 
13

(not Officer Negron) had been “just standing there, like, you need to stay back,” 

nothing evidences that Jones was instructed verbally to leave the area. 

Given these circumstances, an objective officer could easily have perceived 

Jones’s continued presence close to the spot where officers were still attempting to 

restrain Schaefer -- particularly given that Jones and his movements were drawing 

the full attention of at least one security officer -- as uncooperative and impeding 

and obstructing the officers’ ability to carry out that legal duty. See Wilkerson, 

556 So. 2d at 456 (affirming conviction for resisting without violence in part 

because officer considered woman’s continued physical presence near area where 

officers were making arrests and were searching suspects for weapons as 

“obstructing or impeding him in the performance of his duty.”). Neither Jones’s 

subjective intent nor his ultimate guilt or innocence of the offense is material to our 

determination about whether arguable probable cause existed to support the arrest. 

See Jordan, 487 F.3d at 1355; Post, 7 F.3d at 1557-58. Because arguable probable 

cause existed to arrest Jones for resisting without violence, Officer Negron is 

entitled to qualified immunity from Jones’s claim for false arrest. 

Case: 15-14713 Date Filed: 07/07/2016 Page: 13 of 22 
14

Excessive Force Claims:

Although we conclude that Plaintiffs were arrested lawfully (or, at least, not 

clearly in violation of federal law), we must address whether the force used was 

excessive. “Although suspects have a right to be free from force that is excessive, 

they are not protected against a use of force that is necessary in the situation at 

hand.” Jean-Baptiste v. Gutierrez, 627 F.3d 816, 821 (11th Cir. 2010) (quotation 

omitted). And we have “long recognized that the right to make an arrest or 

investigatory stop necessarily carries with it the right to use some degree of 

physical coercion or threat thereof to effect it.” Lee, 284 F.3d at 1197. In deciding 

the merits of a claim for excessive force, we must determine whether -- given all 

the facts and circumstances of a particular case -- the force used was “reasonable” 

under the Fourth Amendment. Graham v. Connor, 109 S. Ct. 1865, 1971-72 

(1989). 

“In determining the reasonableness of the force applied, we look at the fact 

pattern from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene with knowledge of 

the attendant circumstances and facts, and balance the risk of bodily harm to the 

suspect against the gravity of the threat the officer sought to eliminate.” 

McCullough v. Antolini, 559 F.3d 1201, 1206 (11th Cir. 2009). “[T]he force used 

by a police officer in carrying out an arrest must be reasonably proportionate to the 

Case: 15-14713 Date Filed: 07/07/2016 Page: 14 of 22 
15

need for that force, which is measured by the severity of the crime, the danger to 

the officer, and the risk of flight.” Lee, 284 F.3d at 1198 (citing Graham, 109 S. 

Ct. at 1872). 

We stress that “[t]he ‘reasonableness’ of a particular use of force must be 

judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with 

the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” Graham, 109 S. Ct. at 1872. What could the 

situation have been perceived to be by a reasonable officer, even if the reasonable 

perception was mistaken in the ultimate sense. And we must allow “for the fact 

that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments -- in 

circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving -- about the amount of 

force that is necessary in a particular situation.” Id. “We are loath to second-guess 

the decisions made by police officers in the field.” Vaughn v. Cox, 343 F.3d 1323, 

1331 (11th Cir. 2003).

a. Schaefer

Schaefer alleges that -- after he was handcuffed face-down on the sidewalk 

and within Defendant Officers’ full control -- he was Tased, pepper sprayed, and 

punched. Schaefer contends that, when the force was used, he was offering no 

resistance and making no attempts to roll over or to flee. 

Case: 15-14713 Date Filed: 07/07/2016 Page: 15 of 22 
16

From the surveillance video it seems that, after Schaefer was handcuffed on 

the ground and appeared to be within Officer Michael’s control, Officer Michael 

struck Schaefer. Because nothing in the surveillance video contradicts clearly 

Schaefer’s testimony that Defendant Officers also pepper sprayed and Tased 

Schaefer after he was handcuffed, we -- for now, at least -- accept as true 

Schaefer’s version of the facts. Cf. Scott, 127 S. Ct. at 1776.

Viewed in the light most favorable to Schaefer, the evidence demonstrates 

that Defendant Officers violated Schaefer’s constitutional rights that were already 

clearly established when Defendant Officers acted.4

 By 2012, our precedent was 

clear -- such that all reasonable officers must have understood -- that Defendant 

Officers’ use of force against Schaefer after Schaefer was handcuffed for a nonviolent offense and if Schaefer was neither resisting nor attempting to flee, and 

posed no threat to the safety of the officers or to others, constituted excessive force 

in violation of the Fourth Amendment. See Hadley v. Gutierrez, 526 F.3d 1324, 

1330 (11th Cir. 2008) (officer’s single punch to the stomach of a non-resisting, 

handcuffed arrestee constituted excessive force); Vinyard, 311 F.3d at 1349 

(grabbing forcibly plaintiff’s arm and using pepper spray constituted excessive 

force when plaintiff was arrested for a minor offense, was handcuffed, secured in 

 4 We conclude only that Defendant Officers are unentitled to qualified immunity at this stage; we 

do not rule out that qualified immunity might be granted properly later in the proceedings as the 

factual situation is clarified. 

Case: 15-14713 Date Filed: 07/07/2016 Page: 16 of 22 
17

the back of a patrol car, and posed no threat); Lee, 284 F.3d at 1199 (slamming 

plaintiff’s head onto the trunk of a car “after she was arrested, handcuffed, and 

completely secured, and after any danger to the arresting officer as well as any risk 

of flight had passed” constituted excessive force). At this time, Defendant Officers 

are unentitled to qualified immunity from Schaefer’s claims for excessive force 

after Schaefer was handcuffed.5

b. Bass

The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to Bass, demonstrates that 

Bass was talking on his phone, several yards away from the scene of Schaefer’s 

arrest, when he was approached and surrounded by four officers, including Officer 

Negron. Despite the officers’ approach, Bass continued to talk on his phone. 

Officer Negron then sprayed Bass in the face with pepper spray. Bass fell 

immediately to the ground and Officer Negron sprayed Bass in the face again as 

Bass was being handcuffed. Bass contends he was not resisting when Officer 

 5 The district court also concluded (based on Defendant Officers’ testimony and incident reports) 

that Defendant Officers used excessive force during their initial attempt to handcuff Schaefer. 

Schaefer’s complaint, however, alleges only the use of excessive force after he was in “the full 

care, custody and control” of Defendant Officers, “including being handcuffed behind his back.” 

Because Schaefer alleged no claim of excessive force based on his initial encounter with 

Defendant Officers, the district court erred in considering Defendant Officers’ initial use of force 

as a separate claim.

Case: 15-14713 Date Filed: 07/07/2016 Page: 17 of 22 
18

Negron used pepper spray. The surveillance video confirms that Bass offered no 

forceful resistance directly before being sprayed. 

But given all the circumstances, Officer Negron’s use of pepper spray 

constituted no excessive force in violation of Bass’s Fourth Amendment rights. 

Officer Negron certainly violated no constitutional right that was already clearly 

established when Officer Negron acted. We have said that the use of pepper spray 

is reasonable when a person refuses to comply with police requests (passive 

resistance is resistance) and that “pepper spray is a very reasonable alternative to 

escalating a physical struggle with an arrestee.” Vinyard, 311 F.3d at 1348. 

Pepper spray is particularly appropriate and reasonable when officers are faced 

with “potentially violent suspects, especially those suspects who have already 

assaulted another person and remain armed.” McCormick v. City of Ft. 

Lauderdale, 333 F.3d 1234, 1245 (11th Cir. 2003). 

A reasonable officer under these circumstances could have believed that the 

use of pepper spray to assist in arresting Bass was a necessary and a reasonably 

proportionate use of force. Bass was being arrested for battery on a security officer 

(no minor offense). Although nothing evidences that Bass’s battery resulted in 

serious injuries to the officers, Bass had shown himself -- less than a minute earlier 

-- uncooperative and willing to use physical force in the face of police authority. 

And Bass testified that he was still “very emotional” while speaking with the 911 

Case: 15-14713 Date Filed: 07/07/2016 Page: 18 of 22 
19

operator. An objectively reasonable officer in Officer Negron’s position could 

have believed that Bass posed a physical threat to the safety of the arresting 

officers and that pepper spray was an acceptable way to avoid a more serious 

physical confrontation between the officers and Bass: protecting the safety of the 

arrestee as well as that of the officers. 

In the light of these circumstances, Officer Negron’s use of pepper spray 

constituted no Fourth Amendment violation. Moreover, it was not established 

clearly -- such that the constitutional issue was “beyond debate” as of 2012 -- that 

the use of pepper spray against an unrestrained, seemingly able-bodied suspect 

during the course of a lawful arrest for a battery (that had just taken place) on an 

officer constituted excessive force. Officer Negron is entitled to qualified 

immunity from Bass’s claim for excessive force.6

 

 6 The district court’s reliance on our opinion in Fils v. City of Adventura, 647 F.3d 1272 (11th 

Cir. 2011), is misplaced. Fils involved the use of a Taser -- not pepper spray -- against a nonhostile, non-violent plaintiff who had disobeyed no instructions. Id. at 1288-90. Fils is 

significantly different from this case and, thus, would put no reasonable officer in Officer 

Negron’s position on clear notice that what he was doing on the night in question violated an 

already established constitutional right. 

We note that the Court in Fils looked at cases involving pepper spray (and other forms of 

non-lethal force) in determining whether the use of a Taser violated the Fourth Amendment. 

There, the Court explained that it saw “no meaningful distinction” between the different forms of 

non-lethal force under the circumstances of that case: for example, if one could not lawfully use 

pepper spray, one could not lawfully use a Taser. It is open to argument whether the use of a 

Taser constitutes a greater amount of force than the use of pepper spray; we are unpersuaded that 

cases involving Tasers can, in themselves, serve to establish clearly the law about whether the 

use of pepper spray constitutes excessive force, even if under similar circumstances. Cf. Bryan 

v. MacPherson, 630 F.3d 805, 825 (7th Cir. 2010) (“The physiological effects, the high levels of 

pain, and foreseeable risk of physical injury lead us to conclude that the [Taser] X26 and similar 

Case: 15-14713 Date Filed: 07/07/2016 Page: 19 of 22 
20

c. Jones

Officer Negron is also entitled to qualified immunity from Jones’s claim for 

excessive force. Examining the factors set forth in Graham, we accept that Jones 

was arrested for an offense of minor severity (resisting without violence),7 posed 

little physical threat to the safety of the officers or to others, and had made no 

attempt to flee. Thus, although Officer Negron was entitled “to use some degree of 

physical coercion” in arresting Jones, the circumstances justified only a 

proportionately small amount of force. See Lee, 284 F.3d at 1197.

We cannot say, however, that Officer Negron’s single burst of pepper spray 

was constitutionally unreasonable in the light of the circumstances. Moreover, it 

was far from established clearly when Officer Negron acted -- so that every 

reasonable officer would not have understood -- that the use of pepper spray 

constituted excessive force in violation of Jones’s Fourth Amendment rights, given 

the circumstances.

 

devices are a greater intrusion than other non-lethal methods of force we have confronted” 

including, among other things, pepper spray).

7 See Vinyard, 311 F.3d at 1347 (describing obstruction of a law enforcement officer as a minor 

offense).

Case: 15-14713 Date Filed: 07/07/2016 Page: 20 of 22 
21

We have said that “as a means of imposing force, pepper spray is generally 

of limited intrusiveness” and is “designed to disable a suspect without causing 

permanent physical injury.” Vinyard, 311 F.3d at 1348. And we have found no 

Supreme Court, Eleventh Circuit, or Florida Supreme Court decision establishing 

that the use of pepper spray alone during the course of an otherwise lawful arrest 

constitutes excessive force. Cf. Brown, 608 F.3d at 739 (officer’s use of pepper 

spray, combined with throwing plaintiff out of her car and slamming plaintiff on 

the ground, constituted excessive force where plaintiff was arrested for a minor 

offense, posed no threat to the safety of the officer or to others, was not attempting 

to flee, and had otherwise “submitted” to the officer’s authority and 

“communicated her willingness to be arrested”); Reese v. Herbert, 527 F.3d 1253 

(11th Cir. 2008) (denying qualified immunity to officers who pepper-sprayed, 

kicked, and beat arrestee who was lying face-down on the ground when arrestee 

was suspected only of a minor offense, posed no threat to the officers, and was not 

actively evading arrest).

In the light of the totality of the circumstances in this case -- including that 

Officer Negron and Jones were surrounded at night by an agitated crowd, many of 

whom had been drinking, and at least one of whom (Bass) who had been acting in 

a threatening and confrontational manner toward the officers -- it was not “beyond 

debate” that using pepper spray against Jones was then such a disproportionate use 

Case: 15-14713 Date Filed: 07/07/2016 Page: 21 of 22 
22

of force that it violated Jones’s Fourth Amendment rights. Officer Negron violated 

no clearly established constitutional right; he is entitled to qualified immunity from 

Jones’s claim for excessive force.

In sum, we affirm the district court only on the denial of qualified immunity 

to Defendant Officers from Schaefer’s claim for excessive force used after

Schaefer was handcuffed. Defendant Officers are entitled to qualified immunity 

from Plaintiffs’ remaining claims: claims for false arrest and Bass and Jones’s 

claims for excessive force.

AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED IN PART AND REMANDED.

Case: 15-14713 Date Filed: 07/07/2016 Page: 22 of 22