T he H onor abl e Phi l l i p S. Fi ga, U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tJ udge, * D i s t r i ctof C ol or ado, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. FI LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als

Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### S e p t e m b e r 11, 2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT
L E MA N D A L I L L I A N ME C H A M,

Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. N o. 05- 4297 SEAN D. FRAZI ER, a n d DA VI D L. J OHNS ON, D efen dan t s- A pp el l ants . AP P EA L F ROM THE UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT COURT

F OR THE DI S TR I CT OF UT AH ( D . C . N O . 1: 04- C V - 33- B SJ)
J . C l i ffor d Pet er s on, A s s i s t antU t ah A t t or neyG ener al ( M ark L
. Shur t l eff, U t ah A tto rn e yG e n e ra l w ith h im o n th e b rie fs), U tah A tto rn e yG e n e ra l’s O ffice , S a lt L ake C i t y , U t ah, for D efen dan t s- A pp el l ants . C or yB M at t s on, C or yB M at t s on, L . C . , Sandy , U t ah, forPl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee.
B efo re TY M KOVI CH and BA LD OCK , C i r cui tJ udges , and F I GA , D i s tr i ct J udge. *
TY M KOVI CH , C i r cui tJ udge.M echa m al s o fi l ed s even c aus es of ac t i on unders t at e l aw , w hi ch ar e the 1 s u bje c t o f

a s e p a ra te a p p e a l, Mecham v. Fr az i er , 04 -4262 . In defen se of t ho se c laim s, th e o ffice rs a ss e rte d im m u n ityu n d e r th e U tah G o v e rn m e n tal Im m u n ity A ct . W e ce r t i fi ed on ourow n m ot i on tw o ques t i ons i nvol vi ng the appl i cat i on of th e A c t to th e U tah S u p re m e C o u rt. T he fa ct s ar e i n l i t t l e doubts i nce Fr azi er ’ s s quad ca rw as equi pped w i t h a 2 d a s h b o a rd c a m e ra w h ic h re c o rd e d th e in c id e n t. S e e Sc o tt v. Ha rr is , 1 2 7 S . C t. 1769, 1775 ( 2007) ( appendi ng l i nk t o vi deot ape t o opi ni on, s t at i ng “W e ar e happy to allow the v ideo tape to sp ea k fo r i tsel f.”). -2- T hi s i s an i nt er l ocut or yappea l of the di s tr i ctcour t ’ s deni al of fe der al qual i fi ed i m m uni t yt o t w o U t ah pol i ce offi cer s . L emanda M echa m br oughta 42 U . S. C . § 1983 cl ai m agai ns ts t at e tr ooper s Sean Fr azi erand D avi d J ohns on, al l egi ng t hey us ed exce s s i ve for ce i n effectuat i ng her 2003 r oads i de arr es t . T he 1 offi cer s m oved fors um m aryj udgm enton gr ounds of qual i fi ed i m m uni ty . T he d is tr ic t c o u rt d e n ie d th e m o tio n a n d th is a p p e a l fo llo w e d
. H a v in g ju risd ictio n to c o n sid e r th e d e n ial o f fe d e ra l q u a lifie d im m u n ity
un der 28 U
. S . C . § 1 29 1, w e R E V E R S E t he d i stri ctcou rt ’s den i al of the offi cers ’
m o tio n fo r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. I . Backg r ound T he fa ct s of thi s cas e ar e es s ent i al l yundi s put ed. J us taft ernoon on 2 F e b ru a ry2 3 , 2 0 0 3 , F ra z ier p u lled M e c h a m o v e r a s s h e w a s d riv in g o n In ter sta te H i ghw ayI - 15 i n s out heas tU t ah. Fr azi erappr oache d M echa m ’ s carand t ol d her
s he w as bei ng pul l ed overfordr i vi ng fi ve mi l es overt he s peed l i m i tand for fa ilin g to w e a r h e r s e a t b e lt.In h e r p lea d in g s, M e c h a m e x p lain s s h e w a s re lu c tan t to c o o p e ra te 3 beca us e “s he knew of no bas i s forherl i cens e t o be s us pended a nd fea r ed Troope r Fr azi erm ayhave be en us i ng i tas a pr et extt o getheroutof the ca r . ” R . at34. -3- R etur ni ng t o hi s cart o chec k M echa m ’ s l i cens e and r egi s tr at i on, Fr azi er l earned the A r i zona l i cens e s he had gi ven hi m w as s us pended. D i s pat ch i nform ed hi m , how ever , t hatM echa m had a va l i d U t ah l i cens e. W hen Fr azi eri nqui r ed aboutt he U t ah l i cens e, M echa m , forr eas ons noti n the r ecor d, s ai d s he di d not have a U t ah l i cens e. Fr azi eracc or di ngl yt ol d M echa m s he coul d notdr i ve w i t houta l i cens e and thatt he ca rw oul d be i m pounded unl es s s he coul d arr ange fo r s o m e o n e to p ic k it u p . A tt hatpoi nt , M echa m ’ s m othercal l ed on hercel l phone and M echa m t ook t he ca l l
. Fr azi ert ol d M echa m t o putdow n the phone w hi l e he e xpl ai ned the ci t at i on, butM echa m i gnor ed hi m and cont i nued t al ki ng t o herm other
. Fr azi er t ol d M echa m he w oul d arr es therunl es s s he coope r at ed. W hen s he r efus ed t o end herphone conve r s at i on, Fr azi ercal l ed di s pat ch t o or dera t ow truck. 3 T h e to w tru c k a rriv e d fif tee n m in u tes late r, at w h ich p o in t F ra z ier to ld M echa m t he ca rw as bei ng i m pounded and t o getoutof the ca r . M echa m s ai d s he
w as goi ng t o s i ti n hercarunt i l herm otherarr i ved. Fr azi ercal l ed forbackup a nd O ffi cerJ ohns on arr i ved a few m i nut es l at er . Fr azi ert ol d J ohns on thathe w as goi ng t o arr es tM echa m beca us e s he had be en uncoope r at i ve and r efus ed t o get
o u t o f h e r c a r.-4-

Fr azi erappr oache d M echa m ’ s carfr om the dr i ver ’ s s i de w hi l e J ohns on appr oache d fr om t he pas s enger ’ s s i de. Fr azi ert ol d M echa m t o getoutof the ca r orhe w oul d have t o phy s i cal l yr emove her , buts he aga i n r efus ed. Fr azi erthen
s pr ay ed M echa m i n t he fa ce w i t h peppers pr ay , opened the dr i ver ’ s s i de door , and phy s i cal l yr emoved herfr om t he ca r . J ohns on and Fr azi erpul l ed M echa m t o the
r earof the ca r , putheron t he gr ound, and handc uffe d her
. Fr azi erthen ca l l ed for
m e d ic a l a s s is ta n c e . M echa m w as t aken t o t he hos pi t al w her e s he w as tr eat ed forpeppers pr ay i nhal at i on. A ft erw ar ds , Fr azi ert ook hert o the D avi s C ountyj ai l w her e s he w as booked. A l l char ges agai ns tM echa m ar i s i ng fr om the i nci dentw er e l at er dr opped. I I . D i s cus s i on Publ i c off

i ci al s fac i ng ci vi l l i abi l i tyforal l eged c ons t i tut i onal vi ol at i ons m ayas s er tqual i fi ed i m m uni t y . T he doctr i ne, w hi ch pr ovi des “i m m uni tyfr om s ui tr athert han a mer e defens e t o l i abi l i ty , ” Mitch e ll v. Fo rsy th , 472 U . S. 511, 5 2 6 (19 8 5 ), p rev en ts un d u e interfere n ce w ith p u b li c a ffairs bycu tt ing sh o rt b a se les s litig a tio n a g a in st g o v e rn m e n t ac to rs. B e c a u se q u a lifie d im m u n ityis
e ffe c tiv e lylo st if

a c a se is p e rm itt e d to g o to trial, “ it sh o u ld b e re so lv e d a s e a rly
as pos s i bl e. ” O l i verv. Woods , 209 F. 3d 1179, 1185 ( 10th C i r . 2000) ( i nt ernal
c ita tio n o m itte d ).-5-

M echa m al l eges defe ndantoffi cer s us ed exc es s i ve for ce i n vi ol at i on of her Four t h A m endmentr i ght s . I n exce s s i ve for ce c l ai m s , a s us pect ’ s cons t i tut i onal rig h ts a re n o t v io late d if th e a m o u n t o f

fo rc e u se d b yp o lice w a s “ o bjec tiv e ly
r eas onabl e. ” G r aham v. C onnor , 49 0 U . S . 38 6 (198 9). T he o ffi cers saytheiruse of peppe rs pr ayw as obj ect i vel yr eas onabl e i n l i ghtof M echa m ’ s r es i s t ance t hr oughoutt he fi fty - m i nut e tr aff i c s t op. T he di s tr i ctcour tconcl uded the i s s ue w as notr i pe on s um m aryj udgm ent , fi ndi ng that“al though ther e i s no di s put e as t o t he under l y i ng event s i n t hi s cas e, the ul t i m at e ques t i on – the obj ect i ve re a s o n a b le n e s s o f

D e fe n d a n ts ’ a c tio n s u n d e r t h e c ir c u m s ta n c e s – re m a in s .” A p lt. B r., A d d . A a t 2 . “[A ] di s t r i ctcour t ' s deni al of a c l ai m of qual i fi ed i m m uni ty , t o the ext ent t hati ttur ns on an i s s ue of l aw , i s an appe al abl e ‘ fi nal deci s i on’ w i thi n the
m eani ng of 28 U
. S. C . § 1291 not w i ths t andi ng t he abs ence of a f i nal j udgm ent . ” Mitch e ll v. Fo rsy th , 4 7 2 U. S . 5 1 1 , 5 3 0 ( 1 9 8 5 )
. As wi th o th e rl e g a l q u e s t i o n s , we re v ie w th e d e n ia l o f

q u a lifie d im m u n ity d e n o v o . Hol land v. Har r i ngt on , 268 F .3 d 1 1 7 9 , 1 1 8 5 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). T he di s t r i ctcour thel d “the ques t i on of obj ect i ve r eas onabl enes s i s one for th e ju ryto d e c id e .” A p lt. B r., A d d . A a t 2 . W h ile th is p ro p o sitio n m ig h t h o ld
w her e ther e ar e di s put ed i s s ues of m at er i al fac t , the ques t i on of obj ect i ve reas on ableness i s n o t fo r t h e ju ry to d e c id e w h e re th e fa c ts a re u n c o n tr o v e rt e d
. W e have anal y zed thi s ques t i on befor e:-6-

[T]he di s t r i ctcour tfound the mat er i al fac t s w ere n o t in di s put e. D es pi t e thi s fi ndi ng, how ever , the courtappar ent l ydet erm i ned that i s s ues of m at er i al fac t r emai n r egar di ng t he obj ect i ve r eas onabl enes s of th e o ffic e rs ’ a c tio n s . Whether the o f f i cers act ed reaso na b ly, ho w ever, is a leg a l d e ter m in a tio n in th e a b se n c e o f d isp u tedm a ter ia l fa c ts . A lth o u g h th e re a s o n a b len e ss sta n d a rd is in e v itab lyfa c t d e p e n d e n t, i t s houl d notbe r es erved forthe j ur yi n the abs ence of di s put ed mat er i al fac t s . B eca us e qual i fi ed im m uni tyi s a ques t i on of l aw t o be r es ol ved a t th e e a rlies t p o ss ib le s tag e o f lit ig a tio n , co u rts o f ten e n g a g e in d e ter m in a tio n s o f

re a s o n a b len e ss u n d e r th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t, nece s s ar i l y ap p ly i ng t he undi s put ed mat er i al fac t s t o the l egal st and ards. Medi na v. C r am , 252 F. 3d 1124, 1131 ( 10th C i r . 2001) ( emphasi s added)
. H er e, al t hough t he di s t r i ctcour tr ecogni zed “ ther e i s no di s put e as t o the under l y i ng e v e n ts ,” it n e v e rt h e le s s fo u n d th e re a s o n a b le n e s s d e te rm in a tio n w a s fo r t h e ju ry. I n l i ghtof Medi na , t he d i stri ctcou rtshou l d h ave d eci ded qu al i fi ed im m un i tyas a m a tte r o f

la w . S e e a lso Sc o tt v. Ha rr is , 127 S. C t . 1769 ( 2007) ( deci di ng q u ali fied im m u n ityo n u n d ispu ted fac ts)
. In o u r v ie w , th e p o lic e o ffic e rs w e re e n title d to q u a lifie d im m u n ity. A. U nderourcas e l aw , a pl ai nt i ff s eeki ng t o avoi d s um m aryj udgm enton qual i fi ed i m m uni t ygr ounds m us ts at i s fya “he avy ” tw o- partbur den bys how i ng: ( 1) t he defendantvi ol at ed a c ons t i tut i onal ors t atut oryr i ght , and ( 2) t he r i ghtw as c le a rl ye s ta b lis h e d a t th e tim e o f th e d e fe n d a n t’ s u n la w f u l c o n d u c t. Ser na v. C olorado D ep’tof C orr. , 455 F. 3d 1146, 1150 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( i nt ernal-7-

quot at i on om i t t ed)
. B eca us e M echa m fai l s t o m eetbot h pr ongs , w e conc l ude d e fe n d a n t s a r e e n t i t l e d t o q u a l i fi e d i mm u n i tya s a ma t t e ro f l a w. “O urt hr es hol d i nqui r yi n t he qual i fi ed i m m uni tyanal y s i s i s w hether , t aki ng [M echa m ’ s ] al l egat i ons as t rue, [defendant s ] vi ol at ed [he r ] Four th A m endment
r i ghtt o be fr ee f

r om unr eas onabl e s ei zur es . ” Jones v. Hunt , 410 F. 3d 1221, 1225 ( 10t h C i r . 2005)
. W e ana l y ze c l ai m s of exc es s i ve for ce unde rthe obj ect i ve re a s o n a b le n e s s s ta n d a rd o f th e F o u rt h A m e n d m e n t. G r aham , 4 9 0 U .S . a t 3 9 5 . “I n det erm i ni ng t he r eas onabl enes s of the manneri n w hi ch a s ei zur e i s effect ed,
w e m u st b a lan c e th e n a tu re a n d q u a lityo f th e in tru sio n o n th e in d iv id u a l’s F o u rth A m endmenti nt er es t s agai ns tt he i m por t ance of the governm ent al i nt er es t s al l eged t o j us t i fyt he i nt rus i on. ” Sc o tt , 127 S. C t . at1778 ( i nt ernal quot at i on and ci t at i on o m itted). T he r eas onabl enes s of an offi cer ’ s conductm us tbe as s es s ed “fr om the per s pect i ve of a r eas onabl e o ffi ceron the s cene , ” r ecogni zi ng the fa ct t hatt he o fficer m aybe “for ced t o m ake s pl i t - s econd j udgm ent s ” under str essf u l and d a n g ero u s co n d it ion s. T h e F o u rth A m en d m en t st an d ard r equi r es i nqui r yi nt o t he fa ctual ci r cumst ance s of eve rycas e; r el evant fac t or s i ncl ude the cr i m e’ s sev erit y , the pot ent i al thr eatpos ed bythe su sp e c t to th e o ffice r’s a n d o th e rs’ sa fe ty , an d th e su sp e c t’s a ttem p ts to re s is t o r e v a d e a rr e s t. G ro ss v . P irtle , 245 F. 3d 1151, 1158 ( 10th C i r . 2001) ( quot i ng G r aham at 3 9 6

– 9 7 ) ( in te rn a l c ita tio n s o m itte d ). V i ew ed i n l i ghtof the l as ttw o G r aham fa ctors q u o ted a b o v e— the s u sp ec t’ s r es i s t ance t o arr es tand s afe t yconce rns
— the off i cer s conducti n thi s cas e w asM echa m ’ s cl ai m t hats he doubt ed Fr azi er ’ s i dent i tyand fe ar ed he w as 4 u s i n g i ta s a p r e t e n s e t o g e th e ro u to f t h e c a ri s i mp l a u s i b l e . S h e h a d a mp l e t i me and evi dence , i ncl udi ng t he arr i val of the t ow t ruck, J ohns on’ s arr i val on the s cene , t w o m arked s quad ca r s w i th fl as hi ng l i ght s , t o concl ude Fr azi erw as i n fac t a n o ffic e r o f

th e la w . -8- r eas onabl e. A s an i ni t i al m att er , the tr aff i c s t op w as j us t i fi ed ati t s i ncept i on beca us e M echa m w as s peedi ng and al s o notw ear i ng hers eatbel ti n vi ol at i on of U ta h la w . N e v e r t h e l e s s , w h a ts h o u l d h a v e b e e n a r o u t i n e e n c o u n t e rtu rn e d i n t o a fi f t ym i nut e or deal r equi r i ng arr es t . B efor e the off i cer s us ed for ce t o r emove M echa m fro m h er c ar, th e fo ll o w ing ev en ts oc cu rred
. (1) M ec h am b alke d at F raz ier’s
r epor tt hatherA r i zona l i cens e w as s us pended— i ns i s t i ng i tw as val i d— and then contr i but ed t o t he unr es ol ved my s t eryaboutherU t ah l i cens e on fi l e bydeny i ng i t s exi s t ence . ( 2) She t hen per s i s t ed i n us i ng a ce l l phone dur i ng the enc ount er des pi t e Fr azi er ’ s i ns t ruct i ons t o puti tdow n. ( 3) She i gnor ed hi s r epea t ed
w a rn in g s to g e t o u t o f th e c a r u n d e r p e n a ltyo f a rre st, a n d fo rc e d F ra z ier to c a ll a t ow t ruck and backup s uppor t . ( 4) D ur i ng thi s encount er , s he r emai ned i n the 4 d ri v e r’ s s e a t w ith th e k e y s to th e c a r, e x e rc is in g c o n tr o l o f th e c a r a t a ll tim e s . ( 5) W hen bac kup offi cerJ ohns on arr i ved on the s cene , s he nonethel es s i gnor ed his add i t i on al entr eat i es t o ex i tt he car. (6) T hen , she w as gi ven a l ast oppor tuni t yt o cooper at e w hen the off i cer s t ol d herpoi ntbl ank thatfur ther resist an ce w o u ld b e m et w ith arrest. (7) M ec h am , ag ain, refu sed an d the o fficers-9-

foll ow ed thr ou gh w i t h thei r pr om i sed res po nse. In these ci rcum st ances, i tw as a fo re g o n e c o n c lu sio n th a t th e o ffice rs w o u ld h a v e to u se fo rc e to m a k e th e a rre st. T he obj ect i ve r eas onabl enes s of the us e of for ce w as fur therr ei nfor ced by safet ycon cerns. T he en cou nterplay ed o ut on the n arr ow shou l der of a b usy i nt er s t at e hi ghw ay . T he arr es tvi deot ape de pi ct s the bus y , hi gh s peed tr aff i c on I nt er s t at e H i ghw ayI - 15. Par ked on the s houl der , M echa m ’ s carw as j us ta fe w fee tfr om t he hi ghw ay ’ s edge. A n offi cercoul d r eas onabl ybe conc erned that M e c h a m m ig h t cr e a te a d a n g e r to h e rse lf o r o th e rs if

n o t first su b d u e d . W h ile Fr azi erdi d notbel i eve s he w as a fl i ghtr i s k, the fa ctof the mat t erw as thats he h a d h e rk e y s a n d c o n t r o l o f t h e c a rwh i l e r e f

u s i n g t o c o o p e r a t e . I n s u m, M echa m ’ s di s r egar d fort he off i cer s ’ i ns truct i ons , the l ength of the enc ount er , and t he i m pl aus i bi l i t yof M echa m ’ s r at i onal e fornotcooper at i ng, l ead us t o concl ude th a t th e o ffic e rs ’ u s e o f fo rc e w a s ju s tifie d in th e s e c ir c u m s ta n c e s . W i t h t he bene fi tof hi nds i ght , one mi ghthave hope d fora di ffe r ent
reso luti o n . B u t “[n ]ot ev eryp u sh o r sho v e, ev en if i t m aylat er se em u n n ec essa ry i n t he pea ce of

a j udge’ s chamber s , vi ol at es the Four th A m endment
. ” G r aham , 490 U . S. at396. I n m aki ng an arr es t , offi cer s m ayi nevi t abl y“us e s om e degr ee ofT he off i cer s ar gue thateven i f thei rus e of for ce i s deemed exce s s i ve, 5 th e ya re n e v e rth e les s e n tit led to q u a lifie d im m u n ityb e c a u se th e yre a so n a b ly re lie d o n U ta h s ta te la w s a n d p o lic ie s th a t s a n c tio n e d th e a m o u n t o f fo rc e u s e d
. T he U t ah s t at e patr ol had pol i ci es and pr ocedur es governi ng the us e of pe pper s pr ay , and i tappea r s t he off i cer s compl i ed w i th thi s pol i cy . B eca us e w e conc l ude M e c h a m’ s F o u r t h Am e n d me n tr i g h t s we r e n o tv i o l a t e d i n t h e fi r s ti n s t a n c e , we need notr eac h t hi s i s s ue. “I f a pe r s on has s uffe r ed no cons t i tut i onal i nj uryatt he hands of the i ndi vi dual pol i ce offi cer , t he fa ctt hatt he depa r tm ent al r egul at i ons m i ghthave a ut hor i zed the us e of c ons t i tut i onal l yexce s s i ve for ce i s qui t e bes i de t he poi nt . ” C i t

y of Los Angel es v. Hel l er , 4 7 5 U .S . 7 9 6 , 7 9 9 (1 9 8 6 ) (e m p h a sis in o ri g inal). -10- p h y s ic a l c o e rc io n o r t h re a t th e re o f to e ffe c t it.” Id. T h e fo rc e u se d h e re , w h ile 5 unfor tunat e, w as notexce s s i ve. B. E ven i f the off

i cer s ’ us e of pe ppers pr ayw as notobj ect i vel yr eas onabl e, M echa m has fai l ed t o m eett he otherr equi r ementnece s s aryt o defe atqual i fi ed im m u n ity— th a t th e la w w a s c le a rl ye s ta b lis h e d a t th e tim e o f th e v io la tio n . T o as s es s w hethert he r i ghtw as cl ear l yes t abl i s hed, w e mustas k i f “the
r i ght[w as ] s uffi ci ent l ycl eart hata r eas onabl e off i cerw oul d under s t and thatw hat he i s doi ng vi ol at es t hatr i ght
. ” Medi na , 252 F. 3d at1128. T hi s i nqui ry“mustbe under t aken i n l i ghtof the s peci fi c cont extof the ca s e, notas a br oad gene r al p ro p o sitio n . T h e re lev a n t, dis p o sitiv e in q u iryin d e ter m in in g w h e th e r a rig h t is
c lea rlye sta b lish e d is w h e th e r it w o u ld b e c lea r to a re a so n a b le o ffice r th a t h is conductw as unl aw ful i n t he s i tuat i on. ” C or t ezv. McC aul ey , 478 F. 3d 1108, 1114 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) ( c ita tio n s a n d q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ).-11-

T o s ur vi ve a mot i on for s um m ary j udgm ent , the pl ai nt i ff m us t s how the ri g h t w as c learlyestab lish ed in a p arti cu lari ze d sen se. . . . T h is co u rt h as hel d t hatfora r i ghtt o be part i cul ar i zed, ther e mustor di nar i l ybe a Supr eme C our t or T enth C i r cui tdeci s i on on poi nt , orcl ear l yes t abl i s hed w ei gh tof au t ho ri t yfrom othercou rt s. Wi ls on v. Meeks , 52 F. 3d 1547, 1552 ( 10th C i r . 1995) ( ci t at i ons and quot at i ons o m itte d ). W h ile th e fa c ts o f th e c a s e s c o m p a re d n e e d n o t b e id e n tic a l, P i er ce v . G i l christ , 3 5 9 F .3 d 1 2 7 9 , 1 2 9 8 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ), th e ym u st b e su fficie n tly
a n a lo g o u s to s a tis f

yth e p a rt ic u la ri z e d c o n te x t n e c e s s a ry to s u p p o rt lia b ility. M e c h a m c ite s to a n u n p u b lis h e d o p in io n f ro m th is c ir c u it, Mar t i nezv. New Mex ico D e

p ’t o f P u b lic Sa

fety , 47 F. A pp’ x 513 ( 10th C i r . 2002) , t o s uppor ther pos i t i on t hat , att he t i m e of he rarr es t , t he l aw w as cl eart hatt he for ce us ed i n her
cas e w as exce s s i ve. I n Mar t i nez , offi cer s us ed mace on a s us pectw ho had
a lre a d yb e e n re m o v e d f ro m h e r c a r a n d h a n d c u ffe d . U n d e r th e se sp e c ific ci r cumst ance s , t he courtfound the us e of mace w as notr eas onabl e as a mat t erof law sinc e the su sp ec t w as a lr ea d yo u t of the c ar, ha n d cu ffed , an d n o lon g er a d an g er to h erse lf o r oth ers. T h e c ir cu m stan ce s fa cing the o fficers in M ec h am ’s
cas e w er e qui t e di ffe r ent . T he peppe rs pr ayher e w as us ed t o s ubdue and r emove an uncoope r at i ve and unr es pons i ve, bel l i ger entt r aff i c vi ol at orfr om t he ca rs he
s t i l l c o n t r o l l e d , n o tt o f u r t h e ri n c a p a c i t a t e a n a l r e a d ys u b d u e d s u s p e c t . AnM e c h a m c ite s to s e v e ra l c a s e s f ro m o th e r j u ri s d ic tio n s . See , e. g. , P ark v. 6 Sh ifl e tt , 2 5 0 F .3 d 8 4 3 (4 th C ir. 2 0 0 1 ); LaLonde v. C ount y of R i vers i de , 204 F. 3d 9 4 7 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 0 ). N o n e o f th e se c a se s is p e rsu a siv e . E a c h in v o lv e d fo rc e in exce s s of thatus ed her e, ori s ot herw i s e fa ctual l ydi s t i ngui s habl e. T he r eas onabl enes s of the us e of pe ppers pr ayw i l l varyw i th the enc ount er . H er e, as w e di s cus s ed above , i tw as appr opr i at e. -12- u n p u b lish e d o p in io n , m o re o v e r, ev e n if th e fa c ts w e re c lo se r, p ro v id e s littl e su p p o rt fo r th e n o tio n th a t th e law is c lea rlye sta b lish e d o n th is p o in t. 6 In su m , the o ffice rs w e re e n tit led to q u a lifie d im m u n ityb e c a u se n o c lea rly
es t abl i s hed l aw for ecl os ed the us e of for ce i n the ci r cumst ance s her e. I V . C oncl usi on T h e o ffi c e r s ’ u s e o f

fo r c e w a s o bj e c t i v e l yr e a s o n a b l e i n t h i s c a s e . We R E V E R S E th e d istric t co u rt’s d e n ial o f su m m a ryju d g m e n t o n q u a lifie d im m u n ity
a n d R E M A N D fo r f

u rt h e r p ro c e e d in g s c o n s is te n t w ith th is o p in io n .