## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 09

- 2578 J UNE O . C A RL S ON, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. S CO TTB UK O V IC, et a l., D efend a nts-A pp ellees

.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 1:07- cv-00006

—N an R. N olan, Magis trate Judge
.
A RGUED F EB RU AR Y 17, 2010

— D ECI DE D S EP TE MBE R 2, 2010

Befo re R IPPLE, M A NI ON a nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges . R IPPLE, C ircu it Judge. Jun e C ar lso n br ou gh t a m u lticount c i vi l r i ghts ac tion und er42 U
. S. C. § 1 983 aga i nst O ffice r Sc ot t B u ko vic an d th e C ity of D ar ien , an Il lin ois m unici pal co rpor ati on. Cert ai n counts w er e di sm i sse d b y t h e d ist ric t c ou rtan d a r e n o t a t is su e in th is a p p ea l. Rem ai ni ng ar e a Fo urth A m endm ent e xcessi ve f or ce2 N o. 09

- 2578

M on el l v. Dep ’ t of

Soc
. S ervs. , 43 6 U .S. 6 5 8 , 70 1 (19 7 8 ). 1 The di s t ri c tc our tha d j ur i s di c t i on ove r the a c t i on purs uan t 2 to 28 U
. S. C. § 1331. W e h a ve j ur i s di c t i ono ve r the a ppe a l pu r s ua ntt o 2 8 U. S

. C. 3 § 1291. cl ai m ag ai nst Offi cerBukovi c and a M onell cla im 1 aga i ns tthe Ci t y f o r f a i l ur e t o t r a i n the o ffi c e r . With 2 r e s p e c tt o th e s e c l a i ms , th e p a r t i e s c r o s s - mo v e d f o r s u mm ary j ud gm en t. T he district cou r t gra nt ed sum m ary j ud gm ent in f avo r ofthe Cityo n the M onell cl ai m b ut denie d sum m ar y j ud gm ent t o both parties o n the excess i v e f o r c e c l a i m. T h a t c l a i m p r o c e e d e d t o t r i a l , a nd a j ury deter m i ned that Offi cerBukovi c di d not viola te M s. Ca r l s o n’ s c o ns t i t ut i o na l r i g ht s b e c a us e n o F o ur th A men dme nt s e i z ur e ha d o c c ur r e d. M s . Ca r l s o n now appeal s the di str i ct c ourt ’ s fi nal deter m in atio n ofbo th the e xcessi ve f or ce c l aim and the M onell cl ai m . F o r the r ea so ns s ta ted in thi s o pi ni o n, we affi r m the j udg m en t ofthe dist ri ct c ourt
. 3

I

B AC KGR OUND A. The f acts sur ro und i ng M s. Carl son’ s e xcessi ve f or ce cl ai m were conte ste d i ni ti al l y. B ecause the acti on was tr i ed to a j ur y, ho wev er, we m us t ta k e th e f ac ts i n the ligh t m os t fa vo ra b le t o th e p ar ty w h o p re va iled attria l,N o. 09

- 2578 3 O fficer Bu kovic, an d draw a ll inferen ces in h is f avor. SeeM ajes ke v. City of C hi. , 2 18 F.3d 81 6, 820 (7th Cir. 2000). On Janu ar y 3 , 2 00 5, M s. Ca r l so n a nd he r s o n, Pa ul C a r l s o n, v i s i t e d th e Wa l Ma r t s t o r e i n D a r i e n, I l l i n o i s . At t ha t t i me , Ms
. C a r l s o n w a s a p p r o x i ma t e l y 8 3 y e a r s o l d; M r. Ca r l s o n i s a h a nd i c a pp e d a du l t
. Du r i ngthe i r v i s i tto the s tor e, M r. Carl son scr atche d hi s a rm o n a fi re hos e bo x a nd r epo r te d the i nciden t to s to r e empl o y ee s. The em plo yee s co nsequentl y r equeste d that M r. Carl son com ple te cer tai n f or m s. Duri ng tha t pr oce ss, a dispute ar o se b etwee n the s tor e e m pl o y ee s an d the Ca r l so ns ove r w heth er t he st or e would pro vi de M s. Carl son w i th c o pi e s o fthe f o r ms. T he s t o r e ma na g e r e xp l a i ne d: W el l , a s [ M s . Ca r l s o n] wa s up s e t a nd a g i t a t e d b y not havi ng the f or m s, [ M r. Carl son] m ade a g e s t u r e t o wa r d s me a s t o co me t o wa r d s me w here Ifel t like I w as thre ate ned by hi s a cti ons, and the n Ih a d a s k e d h i m t o s t e p b a c k, tha tIh ad fel t th r ea te ne d b y hi m c o m i ngt o war ds m e. And th e r e w a s s o me

— a l i ttl e bi t ofco m m oti on. W hen I d i d a s k h i m t o s t e p b a c k, h e d i d mo v e b a ck, a nd Ir ememberhe r s ay i ngtha t, w e’ r e no t th r ea te ni ng y o u. A nd I r e memb e r st a t i ng, no , I fe e l thr e a t e ne d, an d , y ou know , I ’ m as ki ng f orhi m to st ep back

. H e m ade a s te p a g ain. A nd then at som e point i n ti m e . . . w e phoned the pol i ce depar tm ent t o hel p, not to bani sh the m or

—but to al l eviate the s i tuati on be cause at that p oint in tim e, Ifelt threate n e d to the p oint w he re i t was

— Iwoul d no t be abl e to e nd the s i tu at i o n.4 N o. 09

- 2578 Tri alTr. at45 4- 55. A st or e e m plo ye e cal l ed the Cityo f Dar i en Po l i ce Depa r tment to co m pl ain th at th e C ar l so ns w er e be i ng di sr up ti ve. Dari en Pol i ce Offi cer s S cot t Bu kov i c and Ri chard S tutte soo n ar ri ved a n d asked the sto re m anage r w hat had happ ened. The m anage r expla i ned that M r. Carl son had scr atched hi s a rm and that, duri ng the c laim s p ro cess , he had beco m e l oud and threa tening. M s. Carl son a c c us e d the ma na g e r o fl y i nga nd t r i ed to i nt e r r up t Off i cer B uk o v i c ’ s c o nv e r s a t i o n wi th the manager seve ra l ti m es. M s. C ar l son’ s v oi ce was r ai sed; she w as up setand, byso m e a ccounts, hyst er i cal

. S he ta pp ed O ffi c e r B u k o v i c o n th e a r m, t o wh i c h h e s a i d , “ l e tme f i ni s h wi th [ the s t o r e man a g e r ] , pl e a s e do n’ t t o uc h m e, and then Iwil l ge t t o you. ” Tr i alTr. at46 1. Offi ce r Buk o vi c spo k e ne xtt o M r . Ca r l so n, who e xpla i ned his si de ofthe sto ry . Offi cerBukovi c ob served M r. Carl son to be l oud and boi ste ro us. Offi cerBuk ov ic r el ay ed to th e m an ag erwhatM r . Ca r l so n h ad sa i d; the m anage r reite rated thatshe had fe l t threa tened. Offi cer B uk ovic beli eved the m an ager. O fficer Bu kovic the n att em p ted to get M s. C arlson’s si de ofthe sto ry, but she would notexpl ain w h at had happ ened. M s. Carl son sai d that th e m anage r w as l yi ng. M s. Carl son’ s m anner al so w as l oud and boi ste ro us. Offi cerBukovi c the n ask ed the st or e m anage r w hat she wanted hi m to do. The m anage r sai d that M r. Carl son coul d rem ai n and com ple te hi s paper w or k, bu t that M s. Ca r l so n wo ul d ha ve to le av e th e st o r e be ca us e sh e w as bei ng di sr up ti ve. Offi cer B u kovi c to l d M s. Carl sonN o. 09

- 2578 5

S ee al so Tr ia l T r. at 400 ( “H e didn’ t r eal ly have any ph ysi cal 4 act i o n s w ith h er o the r tha n w he n h e b are ly

— w he n h e p u t his a r m around he r , bu ttha twa s l i ke y ou wou l d t o yo ur g r a nd

m other or s om et h in g , or m other or s om ethi ng ifyou w ere s ayi ng, you k no w , let’ s go thi s way. I t ’ s m or e ofa gui di ng m anner than

— ther e w a s n o otherphy si cal i nter act ion that I sa w .”). that, i fshe did notl eave , he c ou ld a rres t herf ortr espass . M s. Carl son sai d she would notl eave bec ause she w as co nc erne d abo uthe r s o n. Offi cerBukovi c tr i ed thr ee orm or e t im es to convi nce Ms
. C a r l s o n t o l e a v e th e s t o r e , b u ts h e wou l d n o tg o . As Offi cerBukovi c m ade hi s l ast r eq u est, he r eached f or M s. Ca r l so n’ s r i g hta r m wi th b oth o fhi s ha nds , pl ac i ng one hand o n h erf or ear m and one hand o n herupp er ar m . The to uch w as a ca l m , es cor ti ng g esture i n an attem p t to guid e M s. C arlson o u t o f th e store. T he Perso nne l M an ag ero fthe W al M ar t, who wi tness ed th e sc en e, t es ti fi ed th atOffi ce r Buk o vi c “w as j us t as k i ng her to

— that it w as t i m e to l ea ve the s to r e, Ithi nk, a nd he ki nd o f we nt l i k e thi s . . . . To l i k e y o u wo ul d do a gran d m oth er, you kn ow , to sort ofm aybe turn towa rd s the exi t. H e ba re l y t ouched her, and she sta rt ed scr eam i ng. ” Tr i alTr. at39 2- 93. 4 The S t o r e M a na g e r o f the W a l M a r t t e s t i fi e d t hat “whe n the o ffi ce r s wentt o g o help [M s. Car l so n] t o the f ro nt dooro r esco rt[ her] to t he fro nt door, o ne o f them

— how c an Idescr ibe i t?

— as i fy o u wer e he l pi ng yourgr andm a thro ugh the parkin g lot on an i cy day, gr abbed her elbow, l et m e hel p you to the fro nt. ” Id. at46 2.6 N o. 09

- 2578

S eeTrial Tr. at 187- 90, 201- 03, 393- 400, 412, 469, 488, 511- 12. 5 S ee A p p el la n t’s B r. 2 2 ; se e al so Tr. at 20, M ay 18, 2009 ( “W e’ re 6 no t br ing ing a false a rrest claim .”) ; T r. at 4-6, J u ne 5, 2009 ( “T his is n o t a fal se ar re st c a se .”). M s. Carl son “fre ake d out” an d bega n fl ai l i ng herar m s. Id. a t 5 1 1
. Offi c e r Bu k o v i c g r a b b e d o nt o o ne o r b oth of he r a r m s to pr ev enthe r fr o m s tr i k i nghi m a nd, a t th e sam e t i m e, tr i ed to ge t herto cal m dow n. M s. Carl son pu t herhan d s u p a nd cr oss ed herar m s in fro nt o fher chest. The i nci dent l ast ed no m or e than fi ve seco nd s. 5 A fte r M s. C ar lso n h ad ca lm ed d ow n, Of fice r B u ko vic as k ed her i fs he ne ede d a ny medi ca l a tt en ti o n, b uts he r efus ed to a cknow le dge hi m . Ev en tu al l y, s he l eft th e st or e. T h e o ffice rs d id n otarr es t M s. C ar lso n .
B. The Ca r l so ns b r o ug ht thi s ac ti o n a g ains t va r i o us W al M ar t corpo r at e en ti ti es , the Ci tyo fDa r i ena nd O ffi c e r B u k o v i c . A ft e r fi l i n ga s e r i e s o fa me n d e d c o mpl ai nt s, M r . C a r l s o n a b a n d o n e d h i s c l a i m s, a nd M s. Carl son n ar row ed herco m pla i nt to co nsi st onl y o f a F ourth A m endm ent e xcessi ve f or ce c l aim ag ai nst Offi cerBukovi c and a sect ion 1 983 M onell cl ai m ag ai nst the City f or f ai l ure to tr ai n. I m port antl y, M s. C arl son di s a v o we d a n y i n t e n t i o n t o a s s e r ta F o u r th Ame n d me nt f a l s e a r r e s tc l a i m. 6 The parti es cro ss- m ove d f orsum m ar y j ud gm ent o n both outstan d in g c l ai m s. M s. Carl son’ s v er si on o fthe f acts,N o. 09

- 2578 7

T he p ar t i e s ag reed to ha v e the case tried b efore a m ag istrate 7 ju d g e. S ee 2 8 U .S.C . § 6 3 6 (c); se e al so R .15 (jo in t c o n se n t fo rm ). S ee R
. 82 at 12 ( “There i s a quest ion off act a s to t he nature 8 ofthe ph ys i c a l i nt e r a c t i onbe t we e n Pl a i nt i ffa nd Offi c er B u k o v i c an d , thu s, sum m ary jud g m en t is no t ap p ro p riate to ei ther party on thi s portion ofPlai nti ff’ s cl a im t h at s he w as se iz ed in v io la tio n o f th e F o u rt h A m en d m en t.” ). des cr ibe d i n h ermot i o n, was v ery di ffer en t f r o m the ve rs ion d es c rib ed by th e d efe n d an ts . Sh e e ss en tia lly conte nd ed that Offi cerBukovi c at tack ed and bruta l i zed her i n the W al M ar t s tor e. M s. Carl son c on te n d ed that, be ca us e Offi ce r Buk o vi c ha d t o uc he d he r, no g en ui ne i ssue ofm ate ri alf act exi ste d a s to w hethera Four th Am e nd men ts e i z ur e h a d o c cur r e d. S he a l s o c l a i med , how eve r, thatsum m ar y j ud gm ent was appro pri ate o n th e r ea so nabl en ess of the f o r ce us ed, a s wel l a s o n the M o n el l cl ai m as ser ted ag ai nst the Ci ty. The defendants c r o s s - mo v e d f o r s u mma r y j u d g me n to n th o s e s a me i ssues and al so ass er ted thatOffi c er B u kov i c was enti tl ed to qual i fi ed i m m unity. T h e di s t r i c tc o u r t d e n i e d th e c r o s s - mo t i o n s f o r s u m- 7 m ar y j ud gm ent b ecause a genuine i ssue ofm ate rial f act exi ste d as t o w hetherOffi cerBukovi c had se i zed M s. Car l so n. The di st r i ct co ur t al so co nc l ude d that, d ue 8 to the c onfl i cti ng fa c tu alacc ounts, a genui ne i ssue of m at er i alf ac t ex i st ed as to whethe rthe s ei zu r e, a ss um i ng one had occurr ed, was unreas onabl e. The di str i ct cour t also deni ed Offi cerBukovi c qual i fi ed i m m unity du e t o the f actualdi ffer ences. H owever, the dist ri ct8 N o. 09

- 2578

M s . Car l s ons ’ s att or ne y ha d pos ed ques t i ons duri ng 9 Of f i c e r B u k o v i c ’ s d e p o s i t i o n a b o u twh e th e r h e b e l i e v e d he could hav e arr es ted M s. Carls on f or t res passi ng. O ffic er Bukovi c ant i c i pat ed t hat M s . Car l s on i nt en d ed to d iscuss the tresp ass issue at tria l. cour t g ra nted the Citysum m ar y j ud gm ent o n the M onell f a i l u r e - t o - t r a i n c l a i m. M s. Carl son asked t h e courtto r eco nsi der i ts rul i ng; she a rgued that the f or ce use d by Offi cerBukovi c, ev en th o ug h m inim al, was a s ei zu r e as a matt ero fl aw. S he ess enti al ly m ai ntai ned that any touchi ng used byan offi certo i nfl uence a c i ti zen’ s m ove m ents const i tutes a Four th A m endm ent s ei zure . I n hervi ew , the dist ri ct cou rt’s contra ry ruli ng w a s based on a m isun d ersta nd i ng o fes tabl i shed Supre m e Cour t pr ecedent gov

erni ngthe l aw o fF o ur thAm en dm en t s eiz ur e. S he furtherar gued that othe r case s that had dete rm i ned th at, des pi te th e o cc ur r en ce o f so m e phy si ca l co nt act, no Fou rt h A m endm ent s ei zure had tak en pl ace w er e no t co nt r o l l i ng . The di st r i ctc o ur t den i ed th atmot i o n. Pri or t o t r i al, Offi ce r Buk o vi c fi l ed a m o ti o n in l i m i ne to excl ud e, am ong ot h erthi ngs, any re fer ence to orst ate
m en t abo utM s. Ca r l so n’ s l awfulpr es en ce i n the W alM ar t st or e. See R .11 2 (it em #9 ). O ffice r B u ko vic 9 a r g ue d tha t, b e c a us e Ms. Ca r l s o n had no ta dv a nc e d a Four th A m endm ent f al se ar re st cl ai m , the i ssue of M s. Carl son’ s l aw ful prese nce at the W al M ar t s tor e wasN o. 09

- 2578 9

S eeR .11 2 ; se e al so Tr. at 18- 20, M ay 18, 2009. 10 i r r e l e v a ntt o the e xc e s s i v e f o r c e c l a i m t o b e t r i e d. 10 H e co nt en ded th at, i n an y ev en t, M s. Car l so n’ s readi ng ofthe I l l i noi s t re sp as s sta tute w as l ega l l y incor re ct b ecause the c ri m i nal l aw o fI l l i n ois pro hibi ts re m ai ni ng o n th e pr o pe r t y o f a no the r a ft e r ha v i ng b e e n a s ked to leave. O fficer Bu kovic con ten d ed that M s. C arlson’s anti ci pated pres entat i on o fthe tr es pass i ssue w oul d be er ro neous a n d w oul d m i sl ead the j ury. H e a ske d that such e vid ence be e xcl ud ed und erFe deralRule o f Evidence 403. M s. Ca r l so n o ppo se d the m o ti o n. She co nt en ded th atthe issue o fhe r l awfulpr es en ce a nd Offi ce r Buk o vi c’s pr o babl e ca us e to de ta i n h erwer e ce nt r alt o the a ct i o n. She furtherar gued that the I l l i noi s cr i m i nal tr espass sta tute did notapplybec ause the s tatute incl ud ed an “open t o the publ i c” e xcepti on. Tr. at76

- 77, M ay 18 , 2009
. S he m ai ntai ned that the i ssue w as re l ate d to the r easo n ab le n es s o f O ffice r B u ko vic ’s s eiz u re , an d , th u s, te st im on y a b ou t t h e t re sp as s is su e s h ou ld be ad m iss ible attria l. T h e d i s t r i c tc o u r tg r a n t e d th e mo t i o n i n l i mi n e , r ul i ng that “i nj ecting the i ssue of cri m i nal tr espass wil l m i sl ea d a nd c o nfus e th e j ur y a nd lead to unf ai r pr ej udi ce . ” R. 12 4 at5 ( ci tingRul e 40 3)
. The di st r i ctc ou rt a l s o r ul e d: M s. Ca r l so n may a r g ue o nl y th at sh e di d no t want to l eave and that she d id notbel i eve she w as tr es pas singb ec au se the s to r e was o pent o the10 N o. 09

- 2578

S ee T r. a t 1 9 -2 1 , M a y 18 , 20 0 9 ; seeal so R.145 at12- 14. 11 pu b l i c ; s he wa s the r e du r i ngn o r malb us i ne ss hours; and she w as not cre ati ng a disturb an ce. Offi cerB u ko vic, i n turn, m ay ar gue that he bel i ev ed M s. Ca r l so n was t r es pas singb ec au se the st or e o w n e r w an te d h er to lea ve ; sh e re fu se d h is o r de r t o l e a v e ; and she wa s b e ha v i ngi n a di s r up tive m an ne r. Id. at 5-6. Ov er the cou rse of seve ral p retrialc o n ferences, M s. Carl son ask ed the dist ri ct cour t to re consi der i ts r ul i ng . Howev er, the di st r i ctc o ur t st ea df as tly mai nta i ne d tha t, b ec au se M s. Car l so n h ad di sa vo wed a ny i ntenti on t o ass ert a Fo urth Am endm ent f al se ar re st cl ai m , the i ss ue o fM s. Ca r l so n’ s legal st atus o n the W alM ar t property a nd Offi cerBukovi c’ s probabl e ca use t o s e i z e h e r we r e i r r e l e v a ntt o the i s s ue s t o b e t r i e d. 11 W i ththe se pa r amet er s i n pl ac e, the di st r i ctc o ur t co nduc t e d a f o ur - da y j ur y t r i a l

. Th e e v i de nc e c o ns i s ted o f te st i m o ny fr o m Offi ce r Buko vi c, M s. Car l so n, M r . Ca r l so n, the W al M ar t s tor e em plo yee s a nd M s. Carl son’ s doct or s. The evi dence es tabl i shed that Offi cerBukovi c as ked M s. C ar lso n to lea ve th e s to re , an d th at h e m om en ta rily p l a c e d h i s h a n d s o n h e r a r m. U ns a t i s fi e d wi th the p a r t i e s ’ p r o po s e d j ur y i ns t ructi o ns , the di st r i ct cour t cr afte d i ns truct i o ns us i ngthe Se venth Ci rcui t a nd N i nth Cir cui t patt er n in str ucti ons on the l aw o fFo urth Am endm ent e xcessi ve for ce c l ai m s. The di st r i ctc o ur t r em o ve d r efer en ce s to a r r es t si tu at i o nsN o. 09

- 2578 11 and, i nstea d, propos ed giv ing instr ucti ons on how to deter m i ne wh ethera Fo urth Am en d m en t seizu re had o c c ur r e d. M s. Ca r l so n obj ec te d, pr i m ar i l y t ak i ng issu e wi ththe cour t’ s instr ucti on that “ i n perf or m i ng hi s j ob , an o ffi cer ca n us e f o r ce th at i s r ea so nabl y ne ce ss ar y un d er the ci rcum sta nces. ” See R. 15 1. S he mai nt aine d tha t an y t o uch

i ng byan offi cerwitho ut pro babl e ca use t o detai n w as per se unreas onabl e. S he pro posed se ver alal terna ti ve i nstr ucti ons. The fi rs t would have r eq u ire d the j ury to deter m i ne wh ethe r Offi cerBukovi c had pro babl e ca use to de ta i n h er forque st i o ning . Anothe r woul d ha ve i nstr ucted that, i fOffi cerBukovic la c ked pro babl e ca use t o d et ain , a n y “ kn ow in g or int en tio n al u se of forc e . . . i s au to m at ica lly [th at is, p e r se ] unrea sonab l e. ” See A p p ellan t’s B r. 24 (br ac ke ts in o rig in al); see also Tr. at33

- 37, J une 15 , 2 009. M s. Carl son al so propos ed an i nstr ucti on ess enti al l y r equi ring the ju ry to fi nd thatshe w as not tr espass i ng be cause she was in th e sto re duri ng nor m al b u sin es s h ou rs . See A pp el l ant’ s Br. 26
. The dis tr i ct c ourtr ej ecte d M s. Carl son’ s pro posed i nstr ucti ons because theym i sst ate d t he l aw o fFo urth A m en d m e n t ex cess ive f orce claim s. T he district cou rt de c i de d t o g i v e the i ns t r uc t i o ns that i th a d fo r mul a t e d. T he p a rties al so d isagreed over how the verd ict f orm shoul d be s tr uctured. M s. Carls on pro posed a speci al ver dictf or m thatwould have ask ed the j ury ni ne questi ons about disputed f acts , such a s whether Officer Bu kov i c “intenti onal ly appli ed so m e degr ee off or ce t o12 N o. 09

- 2578

Seeal so Tr. at 2- 10, 15- 16, J une 11, 2009. 12 the per so n o fPl ai nti ff

. ” See R. 183. H erpro posed ve rdi ct 12 f or m al so ask ed the j ury to deter m i ne wh etherOfficer B uk ovic had “p robab le cause to beli eve th at Plaintiff was c om m itti ngthe c r i m e o fdi so r der l y c o nduc t” a nd “the cri m e o fcr i m i nal tr espass to pro pertyi n his pre sence. ” See i d. The dis tr i c tc o ur tr ej e c t ed M s. Carl son’ s pro posed ve rdi ct for m be c au se it in te rjec te d irre lev an t is su es an d w o u ld confuse the j ury . In ste ad, the dist ri ct c ourtf ashi oned a s peci alve rdi ct form that tr acke d the l aw o fFo urth A m endm ent e xcessi ve f or ce c l ai m s. I t a ske d: “Do y ou fi nd thatPl ai nti ffhas prove n by a pre p on d er ance o f ev i den ce tha t Defen dan t, S co ttBuk o vi c[ , ] ‘ se i ze d’ Pl ainti ff, J une Carl son, as thatte rm has been de fin ed in these i ns truct i o ns ?” ; i fthe j ur y ans wer ed “ y es ” t o tha t que st i o n: “Do y o u fi nd tha t Pl aint if f ha s pr o ve n b y a pr epo nderance o fev i dence that Defe nd ant, Sco tt Bu kov i c[ , ] used

‘ excess i ve f or ce’ ag ai nst Pl ai nti ff, June Carl son, as that ter m has been defined i n thes e instr ucti ons?” R. 185. The j ur y a ns wer ed no t o the fi r stque st i o n, c o nc l udi ng th atno F o ur th A m en dm en t se i zu r e ha d o cc ur r ed. The dist ri ct cour t accepte d the ver dict

. M s. Carl son d id not fi l e a m oti on f orj ud gm ent a s a m att ero fl aw under Feder alRule o fCi vi l Pro cedure 50.N o. 09

- 2578 13

W e do not und ers tand M s. Carls on’ s argum ent to be rel ated 13 sol el y to the s uffic ie ncy ofthe evidence

— an argum ent thatw as wai ved whe n M s . Car l s on ne gle c t ed t o fi l e a Rul e 50 m ot i on a t tr ia l. SeeUn i t her m Food Sys. v. Sw i f t

- E ck rich , Inc. , 546 U .S. 394 , 40 1-02 ( 20 06 ). T o th e e xten t M s. C arlso n a p p eals pu rel y legal i ss ues

— s he c on t e nd s tha tthe di s t r i c tc ou r tm i s a ppr e he nd e d the l a w ofF ou r th Am e nd m ent s e i z ur e , e r r e d b y gr a nt i ng the m ot i oni n l i m i ne a nd e r r e d b y r ej e c t i ng h er pref erre d v erdictf orm

— s uc h i s s ues ha ve b een pre s er ved f or o u r r ev ie w . SeeFues t i ng v. Z i m m er, Inc. , 44 8 F .3 d 936 , 94 0 (7th Ci r . 2 0 0 6 ) ( “ [ T] he a bi l i t y ofthe c ou r to fa ppe a l s t o a war d a ne w trial w he re th ere is p reju d ici a l ev id en tiary erro r is wel l

- es t abl i s he d and un di s t urbed by U n i therm .”); C h e m et a ll G M BH v. Z R En ergy, Inc. , 3 2 0 F .3d 7 1 4 , 7 2 0 (7t h C ir . 20 0 3 ) (“[I ]f the le gal ques ti on can be s eparated from the f actual one, the n we see n o bar t o r evi ewi ng the l eg al que s t i on not withs t andi ng the par t y’ s f ai l ur e t o r ai s e i ti n a m ot i on for j udgm en t a s a m a tt er o f l a w a t tr ia l.” ); se e al so Pedi at rix Scr ee ni ng, Inc. 

### (continued...) II DI S C US S I ON A. Th e Se c t i o n 1 9 8 3 F o urt h Ame ndme nt Exc ess ive Force C laim M s. C arl son’ s pri m ar y c onte nti on i s that the di str i ct cour t e rr ed by sendi ng the questi on o fwh ether th ere w as a seizure to th e j ury becau se O fficer B u k o vic’s to uch i ngwas a s ei zu r e as a matt ero fl aw a nd tha t th e sei zure was “per se” unrea sonab l e. 1314 N o. 09

- 2578



### (...continued) v. Tel ec hem Inte rn. , Inc. , 602 F. 3d 541, 548 ( 3d C ir
. 2010) ( “G iven the l en gth a nd br ea dthofthe Dis t ri c tCourt’ s ex am i nat i on of the issues an d the o p p o rtu nities exten d ed to b oth p arties to p r e se n tth e i r a r g u m e n t s, w e a r e sa t i sf i e d th a t[t h e p l a i n t i ff’s l eg al ] c hal l en ge was ful l y a i re d i n the Dis t ri c tCour tan d p re se rv ed for ap p el la te re v ie w .”). Throughout the di str i ct cou rt pro ceedi ngs, M s. Carl son m ai nt ai n e d th a ts h e wa s “ s e i z e d a s a ma t t e r o fl a w” and that the s eizure was “perse unrea sonab l e. ” As her co uns els ta te d a t o ne po i nt : “ [ E] ve n tho ug h De fen dan t opted not to ar re st Pl ai nti ff, hi s i ni ti ati on and c on ti nuati on o f u n c onse nted-t o physi calco ntact aga i nst he r perso n, no m att er how bri ef, f al l s w i thi n an ex cepti on to the per seunrea sonab l e r ule o nl y i fhe ha d probabl e cau se to arrest he r. ” R.132 at 11. Th e d istrict cou rt corr e c t l y r ej e c t e d Ms
. C a r l s o n ’ s f o r mu l a t i o n s o fth e l a w. Any F o ur thAm en dm en t i nqui r y ne cess ar i l y b eg i ns w ith a d eterm inat ion of w he th er a search or seizure ac tu ally oc c u rre d

. SeeScottv. Harris , 550 U
. S. 37 2, 381 ( 2007) ( be g i nni nga s ec ti o n 1 98 3 F o ur thAm en dm en t ex c e s s i v e f o r c e i nqui r y wi th a de t e r mi na t i o n tha t a sei zure o ccurr ed a n d t hen tur ni ng to wh etherthe f or ce u se d w as u n re as on ab le); Lea f v. She lnutt, 40 0 F
. 3d 1070 , 1089 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) ( “I n or der t o deter m i ne w h et h er [ an offi cer ] se i zed [ an i nd i vi du al ] i n vi ol ati on o fthe Fo u rth Am e nd men t, . . . [ w] e fi r s tc o ns i de r wh e the r [ the i nd i v i dual ] was sei zed .

. . .”). If th at qu es tio n is an sw er ed in th e affirm ative, t h e n e xt qu estion is w he th er the seizu re w as unreas onabl e. See Browe rv. County of Inyo , 48 9N o. 09

- 2578 15

I n F l ori da v

. R oyer, 46 0 U .S. 491 ( 19 83 ), J u stices M arsh all, 14 Pow el l and St evens j oined an opinion authored by Just ic e W hit e, adop ti ng the “r eas onab le p ers on-free to leave” s tandard en unc i at ed i n J us t ice St ewar t ’ s dec i s i on i n U ni t ed Sta t es v. (co n tin u ed ...) U
. S. 59 3, 59 9 ( 1989 ) ( “ ‘ Se i zure ’ al one i s n ot e nough f or § 1 983 li abili ty; th e seizure m us t be ‘un reason able.’ ”); s e eal s o Gr aham v . Conn or, 49 0 U.S

. 38 6, 39 5 n. 10 ( 1989 ) ( di st i ng ui sh i ngthe s ei zu r e i nqui r y fr o m the r easonab len es s in q u iry ); Le af , 40 0 F
. 3d at 10 89 ( “[ I ] f we concl ud e tha t [ the i nd i v i du a l ] wa s s e i z e d, we the n m ust det er m i ne whethe r th e se i zu r e was unr ea so nabl e. ”). The sei zure and rea so n ab len es s in q u iries are d ist inct an d shou ld n ot be con fl ated

. Furth e r m ore, an officer’s pr ob able cause to sei ze i s no t a ntece dent to thi s tw ost ep i nqui r y b utr athe r i s a su bs eto fthe l ar g err ea so na b l e ne s s i nqui r y o fthe s e c o nd s t e p. W ith resp ect to th e fi rst inqu iry

— whe the r the re has be ena s ei zu re

— the t ra dit i onalapproa ch i s whether th e p er so n be liev ed h e w as “fre e t o lea ve .” T h is st an d ar d is an o b je c t i ve on e a n d “is m ad e o n th e b as is o fthe ‘ to ta l i tyo fthe c i r cumst an ce s’ sur r o undi ngthe encounter
. ” U nited Sta tes v. Jerez , 10 8 F. 3d 684, 69 0 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 7) ( quo ting Flori da v. B osti ck, 50 1 U.S

. 42 9, 43 7 (19 91 )). For an u n d er st a n d in g of t h is s ta n d ar d , w e b eg in wi thJ us ti ce S te wart’s o pi ni o n in U ni t e d S t at e s v. M e n de nhall , 4 46 U. S

. 5 44 ( 19 80 ) , a nd the pl ur al i tyo pi nion of th e S upr eme Co ur t i n Flo rida v. R o yer, 4 6 0 U. S

. 49 1 ( 19 83 )
. I n M endenhall, J us t i c e S t e wa r tn o t e d that

1416 N o. 09

- 2578

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 14 M en d en h a ll, 44 6 U .S. 5 44 ( 19 80 ). J u stice B lack m u n join ed , in hi s di s s en t i ng o pi ni on, the pl ur al i t y’ s adopt i on ofthats t and a rd

. S ee Ro yer, 46 0 U .S. a t 5 1 4 (B la ck m u n, J. , d iss en tin g ). physi calco ntact w i th the police was but o ne o fse ver al “ci rcum stan ces that m i ght ind i cate a sei zure . ” See M endenhall, 44 6 U.S . a t 554. A dd i ti onalci rcum sta nces i nc l ud e the nu mbe r a nd thr e a t e ning pr e s e nc e o f offi cer s, the displ ay ofa w eapon a nd the pol i ce o ffi cer s’ lan gu ag e an d to n e of vo ice su gg es tin g c o m p u lsio n . Id. at5 54

- 55
. I n R o yer, the C ou rt de term ined that a seizure had occurr ed i n an a irp ort when the o ffi cer s t oo k a m an ’s p lan e t ick et an d lice n se , th u s p re ve n tin g h im f ro m walk i ng away. See 4 60 U
. S. at50 4- 06. I n both case s, th e f o c us wa s s qu a r e l y o n whe the r a r e a s o nab l e p e r son w oul d have fel t fre e t o l eave . Lat er, i n I
. N
. S. v. D e lgado , 4 66 U. S

. 2 10 ( 19 84 ) , the Court rul ed that i m m i gr ati on “ sw eeps” i n w or kp lac es, w he reby govern m en t a g e n ts asked qu estions of w orkers w hi l e o therag ents sto od at the doo rs , di d not co nsti tute a F ourth A m endm en t s ei zure . The Courtexpl ai ned that “[ u]nl ess the ci rcum sta nces ofthe encountera re so i nti m i dati ng as to dem onst ra te that a re aso nabl e p er son w oul d have be l i eve d he w as not f re e t o l eave i fhe ha d not re sponded , o ne can n ot say that the questi oni ng r esul ted i n a dete nti on under the Fo urth Am end m en t. ” Id. at2 1 6
. No t a b l y, th e a g e n t s h a d t a p p e d o n e o ft he wor k er s o n the s ho ul dera nd a sk ed he r que st i o ns ; the C ou rtfou n d th at n o s eiz u re h ad oc c u rre d

. Id. at22 0. InN o. 09

- 2578 17

The p urpo se ofan encounterm u st no t be c onfus ed w ith an 15 of fic er’ s subjec ti ve int ent w hen engaging th e encoun ter ed ind iv id u al

. T he reaso na b le p erso n-free to leav e stan d ard is an object ive one, and b o th the offic er’ s and the encounter ed i ndi vi dual ’ s s ubj ec t i v e bel i ef s duri ng the e nc ount erar e not d et er m in a tiv e as t o w h et h er a se iz u re o cc u rr ed

. S ee 4 Way n e R. La Fa ve , S e arch and S e i z ur e : A T r e a t i s e o n the F ou r th Am e nd

m en t § 9.4 (a ), p p . 41 3 -1 4 (4t h ed . 20 1 0 ). Tenn essee v. G a rner, 4 71 U. S

. 1 , 7( 1985 ), w hi l e ho l di ng th a t “ th e r e c a n b e n o q u e s t i o n th a t a p p r e h e n s i o n by t he use o fdeadl y forc e i s a se i zure , ” the Courtr eaffi rm ed the c onti nued vi abi l i ty ofthe M ende n h a ll to ta l i tyo fthe ci rcum sta nces approach because , i n other ci rcum sta nces, “it i s not alw ays clear j us t w he n m inim al poli ce interfer en c e b ec om es a se izu re .” I n case s w h er e ph ysi calco ntact w i th a ci ti zen oc c u rre d , th e C ou rth as su gg es te d th at th e o fficia l pu rpo se o fthe c o nt ac t m at te r s. I n Browe rv. C o un ty o f Inyo , 15 489 U
. S. 59 3 ( 1989 ), the Court re ver sed an a pp el l ate cour t dete rm i nati on that a pol i ce r oadbl ockthatcause d a fatal car c r a sh w as no t a seizure. Th e Sup rem e C ou rt d eterm ined tha t the road block w as ind eed a seizure b ecause the ro adbl ockeffecti vel y co ntro lled a nd s t opp ed th e s u sp ec t. T h e C ou rtex p lain ed , Vio l ati on o fthe Four th A m endm ent r equi re s a n in te n tio n al a c q u isit ion of p h ys ica l co n tr ol. A sei zure o ccurs ev en wh en an uninte nd ed pers on orthi ng is the obj ect ofthe detenti on o r tak i ng, b u t t h e d et en tio n or t a k i n g its elf m u st be w ill-18 N o. 09

- 2578 ful.

. . . I n sum , the Fo urth Am endm ent a dd re sse s m i suse ofpow er, notthe acci dentaleffects o f othe rwis e l aw ful gov er nm ent c onduct.

. . . .

. . . I t i s cl ear, i n other w or ds, t h at a Four th A m endm ent s ei zure does noto ccur w henever ther e i s a go vernm ental l y c aused te rm i nati on o f an i nd i vi du al ’ s f re edom of m ove m ent ( the in nocent passerby) , norev en wh enever ther e i s a go ve rn m e n t a l l y c a u s e d a n d g o v e r n m e n ta lly desired te rm i na tio n ofan ind i vi du al ’ s fre edom ofm ove m en t (the fl eeing fel on) , but onl y when ther e i s a go ver nm entalte rm i nati on o ffre ed om ofm ove m ent thro ug h m ean s intenti o na llyap pli ed

. B row er, 48 9 U.S

. at 596- 97 ( i nter nal ci tat i ons and quotati on m ar ks om itt ed ) (em p h as is in o r i g in al); s e eal s o Coun ty of Sacram ent o v. Lewis , 5 23 U. S

. 8 33 , 8 44 ( 19 98 ) ( co nc l udi ng th a t n o s eiz u re oc c u rre d w h er e t h e p olic e a c c id en ta lly str uck and k ill ed a m oto rcy cl i st du ring a hi gh- speed p u rs u it). T h e C ou rtex p an d ed on th at rat ion ale in C alif ornia v. Hoda riD
. , 499 U
. S. 6 2 1 , 624-29 (1991), w he re th e Cour t dete rm i ned that no s ei zure o ccurr ed w hen a s us pe c twa s a pp r o a c he d b y p o l i c e , the n r a n aw ay an d w as ch as ed . Th e C ou r t s ta te d th at “[t ]h e w or d ‘se iz u r e ’ r e a d i l y b e a r s th e me a n i n g o f l a y i n g o n o fh a nd s orappli cat ion o fphysi calfor ce t o re str ai n m ove m ent, eve n w hen i t i s ult i m ate l y un su cces sful. ” Id. a t 62 6. The C ourtci ted with approvalco m m entar y that e xplai ned that an arres t coul d be a ccom pli shed by “ ‘ const ructi ve detenti on, ’ ” which “ ‘ i s accom pli shed by m er el y t ouchi ng,N o. 09

- 2578 19 ho wev ers l i g ht l y, the b o dy o fthe acc us ed, b y the partym aking the arr est a nd for th a t pu rpo se . ’ ” Id. at62 5 ( c i t i ngA. Co rnel i us , S e a r c h a nd S e i z ur e 1 6 3

- 6 4 ( 2 d e d. 1930 ) ) ( em phasi s a dd ed). Final l y, an i m po rt ant ca veat to the fr ee to l eave standard, oft en em plo yed i n bus s w eep conte xts, i s that “ w hen a perso n ‘ has no desi re to l ea ve ’ f o r r ea so ns unr el at ed to the po l i ce pr es en ce , the

‘ coe rci ve effect ofthe encounter ’ ca n b e m eas ured be tte r by ask i ng wh ether‘ a r eas onabl e pe rs on would feelfre e to decl i ne the o ffi cer s’ r equests o r othe rwis e t er m i nate the e ncounter
. ’ ” B re ndlin v. Ca l. , 55 1 U.S

. 2 49 , 25 5 ( 2007 ) ( quoti ng B osti ck, 501 U
. S. at 435-36). A s thi s di scussi on m ake s cl ear, m er e p h ysic alco ntact by an o ffi cer, al though a si gn ifica nt f acto r, does not aut om at i ca l l y qu a l i fy a n e nc o un ter as a F o ur th Am e nd

m en t s eiz u re . See 4 W ayne R. LaFav e, S ear ch and Se i zure : A Tre atis e on the Fo urth Am endm ent § 9. 4( a) , p. 42 7 (4t h ed . 201 0) (“ E ve n p h ys ica l co n ta c t is ac c e p ta b le if it is consen su al, a norm al m ean s o f a ttract ing a pe rson ’s atten tion or obviously serves som e non se izu re pu rp ose .” (intern al qu otation m arks an d citations om itted )) ; s e eal s o i d. a t n. 85 & ac co m pan y i ngt ex t ( co m m en ting that “physi cally g rabbi ng and m oving the suspect, ” with a co ncom i tant show off or ce a nd autho ri ty, m ay i nd i cate that a s eiz ure occur re d). Fo r i nstance , we have s ugg e s t e d tha tp hy s i c a l c o nt a c tdo e s n o te l e v a t e a utomat i c a l l y a n e nc o un t e r t o the l e v e l o fa F o ur th Am e nd

m en t se izure. As we s ai d in A cev edo v. C a nterbu ry, 45 7 F
. 3d 72 1, 7 25 ( 7th Cir. 2 006) , “ [ c] er ta i n ty pes o fno nr es tr ainingphy si ca l c o nt ac t, wi th o uta c o nc o m i ta nt showing ofautho ri ty, ar e j ust t oo m i norto co nstit u te a20 N o. 09

- 2578

‘ se i zu r e’ f o r F o ur thAm en d m en t pur po se s wi th o utdo i ng vi ol ence to t h at w or d.” S e ea l s o Wi l l i a ms v . C i tyo f C h a mpaign , 524 F. 3d 826, 829 ( 7th Cir

. 2008 ) (“In co nsti tuti onal tor t ca ses ( i ncl ud i ng ca ses br ought to vi nd i cate r i ghts cr ea te d b y the F o ur thA m en dm en t) a s el se wher e i n the law , de m i n i m is no n cu rat lex .”); Le af , 40 0 F
. 3d at 1090

- 91 (det erm ining th at no se izure occ urred w he re officers po i nt ed g uns a nd s hi ne d l i g ht s to war ds a sl ee pi ngman, eve n i ftheynudged him )
. I n sum , ther e a re , o fco urse , si tuati ons i n w hi ch the tot al i ty ofthe ci rcum sta nces re quir e a deter m i nati on th at a sei zure has occur re d as a m at te r of law

. Se e, e . g. , Te n n . v . G a rner, 471 U .S. 1, 7 (1985) (f atal sh ooting of su sp ect const ituted se izure). H owever, i t i s a l so cle ar t h at a m er e t ouch i s no t per se a s ei zure under the Fo urth Am endm ent. T he ap p li catio n of th ese p rinciples to th is case cen ters on th e q u es tio n of w h et h er a se i z u r e t o ok p lac e. In t h is case , thi s question a d m i tte dlyi s o ne o fso m e di ffi cul ty. W e con clud e, acc ord ingly, that t h e district cou rt corr ec tly s ubm itte d the matt ert o the j ur y . Ev ena cc ept i ng the e vi dence in the l i ght m ostf avo rabl e t o Offi cer B uk ovic, w e can not c h a r a cterize th e situation as the sort o fde min i m i s to uch i ngtha t, a s a m at te r o fl aw, ha s no Four th A m endm ent i m pli cati ons. There cer tai nl y was evid en ce o fr ec o r d tha t woul d ha ve pe r m i tt ed th e j ury t o de t e r mi ne tha t a sei zu r e i n f a c tdi d t a k e p l a c e . On th e o th erha nd, the j ur y a l so was e nt i tl ed to r ea chthe opposi te concl usi on: Offi cerBukovi c’ s co ntact w ith M s. Car l so n’ s ar m m ay ha ve be en so l i g hta nd s o mom en ta ry th at it d id n otco n v e y, to th e o bj ec tiv e o b se rv er , a dem onst ra ti on o fanythi ng m or e than an e ncourage-N o. 09

- 2578 21

M s. C arlso n d oe s no t d ispu te tha t the ju ry w as co m p eten t to 16 s e r ve a s the f a c t fi nd e r o n the i s s ue o fwhe the r a F ou r th Am e nd

m en t seiz u r e h ad occu rred

. Ind eed , tha t pr op osition is w ell es ta b lis h ed

. See, e . g. , A cevedo v . C an te rbu ry, 457 F. 3d 721, 725 ( 7th Cir

. 2006) ( “Based on th is test im ony, a reas onab le j ury c o u l d h a v e fo u n d th a tA c e v e d o w a s s e i z e d b y C a n t e rb u r y ’s b l o w t o h is h ea d .”); D ri ebel v. C i ty of M i l w au kee, 298 F. 3d 622, 638 ( 7th Cir

. 2002) ( com m enti ng that “a rat ional j ury m ight very wel l c onc l ude thatOf fi c erSg ri gnuol i
. . . was s ei ze d by the detect ives w ho accos ted him , ” but ass um ing that s ei zure had o cc u rr ed ); seeal so G arden h ire v. Sch u bert, 205 F. 3d 303, 313- 15 (co n tin u ed ...) m ent that s he l eave the ar ea . W e m ust r em em berthat pol i ce o ffi cer s fi nd them sel ves i n a m yr i ad ofco ntenti ous, an d pot en tially exp losi ve, si tu ations w he re i n an effort to defuse the si tuati on, a com b inati on o fve rba l decl ar ati ons and gestures m u st be em plo yed. W hen cons i dered i n conte xt, such a cti ons m ay be m ore e xhort ato rythan com m anding i n natu re . W hi l e i t co uld have deter m i ned oth erw ise, w e beli eve th at t he j ury w as en titl ed to det ermi n e th a t, a tt he t i me h e t o u c h e d Ms
. C a r l s o n ’ s a r m, Offi cerBukovi c’ s a cti on was j ust th is ty pe ofge stur e: m or e exhort ato rythan com m anding. The appropr i ate ch ar ac te r i za ti o n o fthi s si tu at i o n was a que st i o n f o r the j ury afteri t had hear d al l the evi de n c e. C f

. Ace ve do , 45 7 F. 3d at 725 ( concl ud i ng tha t the question of w hether an o ffi c e r s e i z e d a n i n d i v i d u a l b y p u n c h i n g h i m i n t he face w as a qu estion for the j ury). The dis tr i ct c ourt ’ s for m ula ti on o fj ury i ns tructi o ns a dequa te l y a r ti cul at ed th es e leg alpr i nc i pl es . The 1622 N o. 09

- 2578

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 16 (6 th C ir . 20 0 0 ); Haw ki ns v. C i ty of Far m i ngto n , 1 8 9 F
. 3d 695, 702 ( 8th Cir

. 1999) ; C as sa d y v. Tac ke tt, 93 8 F .2d 693 , 69 7-98 ( 6th C ir . 19 9 1 ). S ee al so 4 M art in A. Schwartz & G eorge C. Pratt, Sec ti on 1983 17 L iti g a tio n § 8 .01 (2d ed . 20 0 9 ) (In str u ct io n 8.0 1 .7). d istri ct cou rt i nform ed the j ury th a t the seizu re de term i nati on d epended o n w hetherM s. Carl son’ s l iber ty w as re str ai ned and w hether“a reaso nabl e per son w oul d not hav e fel t fre e t o i gnor e th e prese nce o fl aw enf or cem ent a nd to go abo ut herbusi ness. ” Tr i alT r. at 56 8. The j ury was i ns truct ed to e va l ua te o bj ec ti ve l y the tot al i ty ofthe ci rcum sta nces. The di str i ct courtpro vi ded, m ore o ve r, a ppr o pr i at e f ac to r s to g ui de th e j ury’ s co nsi derat i on o fthe i ssu e. M s. Carl son w as not e nt i t l e d t o a n i ns t r uc t i o n tha tma de the de t e r mi na t i on depend enti re l y o n w hetherp hysi calco ntact had occur re d; that f act or i s but one that the j ury ought to c on sid er . See M endenhall, 44 6 U.S

. at55 4. N orwas 17 M s. Ca r lson en ti tl ed to a n ins truct i o n l i nk i ngthe sei zu r e i nqui r y t o the i s s ue o fp r o b a b l e c a us e b e c ause th ose con cep ts are not to be con fl ated

. Th e d istri ct cou rt d id n o t a b us e its discretion in rej ectin g M s. C arlson’s propos ed j ury i nstr ucti ons. The dis tr i ct c ourtal so acte d w el l withi n i ts disc re tion w hen i t decl i ned to gi ve a j ury i nstr ucti on des cr ibingthe I l l i no i s cr i m i na l t r es pas s st atut e an d w hen i t pr ecl ud ed M s. Carl son f rom pre senting ev i denceN o. 09

- 2578 23

W e re vi ew a rej ec t ed j ur y in s t ru c t i on i n c om par i s on t o the 18 a ct u a l ch a rg e i s su ed b y th e d ist ri ct co u rt
. S ee A m m o n s- L ew is v . M et ro . Wa te r R ec la m a tio n D ist . o f G re a te r C h i. , 488 F. 3d 739, 75 1 ( 7th Ci r. 2007)
. W e re vi ew Rul e 40 3 r ul i ngs f or abus e of d isc re tio n . S ee Estat e of M orel an d v. D i et er, 395 F
. 3d 747, 754- 5 5 (7t h C ir . 20 0 5 ). A d d ition ally , the tresp ass issue h a d v e r y little releva nc e to 19 whethe r Of fi c erBukovi c us ed e xces s i ve f or c e i n c om m i t t i ng the al l eg ed s ei zur e. The doc t ri ne of Four th Am en dm en tr ea s onable ne s s ha s di s t i nc t, c om pone ntpar t s . A s ei zur e without prob able c ause is c o n ceptuall y d ifferentfrom a s ei zure thate m pl oys e xc es s i ve f or c e; both a re u nr ea s onabl e, butf or d iffer en t r ea so n s. SeeEvans v. Poskon , 60 3 F .3d 3 6 2, 364 ( 7th Cir. 2010) ( dist inguis hing betw een Fourth A m endm ent unreas on a bl e ne s s ba s e d o n la c k ofpr ob a bl e c a us e a nd e x c e s s i ve fo rc e i n t h e e xc lu sio n a ry ru le co n te xt ); M cK enna v. C i ty of P h il a. , 5 8 2 F
. 3 d 4 4 7, 4 6 0 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 9 ) ( “ Th e Di s t r i c tCo urt p ro p erly r e jected T im oth y M cK en na ’ s arg u m en t that it sho u ld ha ve i ns t r uc t e d the jur y, whi c h r ej e c t e d p l a i nt i ff s ’ e x c e s s i ve force cla im s, tha t an y am ou nt o f force u sed to effect an arre st w itho u t pr ob ab le cau se is pe rsee xc es s i ve. [ That ] s t at em en tof the l aw i s uns uppor t ed b y c it at i on, an d, m or eo ver, i s wron g. A s t h e C o u rt cor rectly con clu d ed , the jury w as req u ired to revie w any exc es si ve f orce cl aim s und er a tot ali ty ofthe ci r- (co n tin u ed ...) to show that s he had not vi ol ate d t h e statute. W hether 18 th e st atut e was v i o l at ed was notr el ev an t to the th resh old issue o f w he th er a seizure ha d occu rred

. De term i ni ng wh ethera sei zure o ccurr ed need ed t o be dec i ded se par at e an d a par t f r o m the que st i o n o fr easonabl eness . 1924 N o. 09

- 2578

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 19 c u ms t a n c e s t e s t, a s e n u n c i a t ed i n G ra ham v. C onnor, 490 U.S

. 38 6 ( 19 89 ) , t o de t er m ine w he the r the f or c e us ed was r ea s ona b le .” (p a ra lle l ci ta tio n s o m itt ed )); Snel l v. C i ty of York, Pa. , 56 4 F .3d 659 , 67 2-73 ( 3d C ir. 20 09 ) (rejecti n g “ eff or ts to b oo tstr a p ex ce ssi v e fo rc e c l a im s a n d p ro b a b le ca u se ch a lle n g es ” ); C ortez v. M cC au l ey, 47 8 F
. 3d 110 8, 1 127 ( 10 th Ci r. 20 07 ) ( di s t i ngui s hi ng be t weenFour th Am en dm en te xc es s i ve f or c e and fa lse ar re st c la im s); P apineau v. Parm l ey, 465 F. 3d 46, 62 ( 2d C ir
. 20 06 ) ( “[ T] he r ea s onabl en es s t este s t abl i s he d i n G ra ham r e m a i ns the a ppl i c a bl e t e s tf orde t e r m i ning whe n e x c e s s i ve f or ce h as been used, i ncluding those cas es w here of fic ers a lle g ed ly l a ck p ro b a b le ca u se to ar re st.” ); Bei erv. C i ty of Lew i st on , 35 4 F
. 3d 1 05 8, 10 64 (9th Ci r. 20 04 ) ( “Be c aus e the excessiv e fo r c e a n d f alse ar rest factu al inq u iries are d istinct, estab lishing a lack of pr o b a b l e cau se to m ak e an arre st d o es n o t e sta b lis h an ex ce ssi v e fo rc e c la im , an d v ic e-v er sa .”). Ofc our s e, we ha ve re c ogni ze d f al s e ar re s tas a val i d bas i s f or a s e c t i o n 19 8 3 F o u rt h A m en d m en t c la im
. SeeBentz v. C i ty of K en d a llv ille, 57 7 F .3d 776 , 77 9 (7th C ir. 2 0 0 9 ) (“ W he re an arre st occ u rs w itho u t pr ob ab le cau se, the p lain tiff m ay b ring a claim f or unr ea s onabl e s ei zur e. ”)
. Su c h a c l ai m ne c es s ar i l y f oc us es the re as onabl en es s m et ri c onthe e xi s t en c e ofanoffi c er ’ s prob ab le ca u se t o d et a in
. See, e . g. , Bel che r v. Nort on , 49 7 F .3d 742 , 74 8 (7th Ci r. 20 07 )
. Of t ent i m es , Four th Am en dm en t ex c es s i ve f or c e and fa lse a rr es t cla im s a re a sse rt ed in th e sa m e a ct io n . See, e . g. , C a tlin v . Ci ty of

Whea t on , 57 4 F .3d 36 1 , 36 4 -6 5 (7t h C ir . 20 0 9 ); Wi l l i a ms v . Ci ty o f Ch a mpaign , 5 2 4 F .3d 82 6 , 82 7(7t h C ir . 20 0 8 ); Ti bbs v. C ity o f C h i. , 46 9 F .3d 6 6 1 , 66 2 (7t h C ir . 20 0 6 ); M o r f i n v . Ci ty o

f E. C h i. , 349 F. 3d 989, 994- 9 6 (7 th C ir
. 2003)
. In this cas e, how ever, (co n tin u ed ...)N o. 09

- 2578 25

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 19 M s . Car l s on di d notadva nc e a f alse arr es tc l ai m . I n f ac t, s he affi rm ativ ely d isav ow ed an y inten tion to assert a f alse ar rest cl a im
. S ee A pp el lant ’ s Br. 22; Tr. at 20, M ay 18, 2009; T r. at 4- 6, Ju n e 5 , 20 0 9
. W e rev iew th e rejectio n o f a v erd ict f or m f or ab u se of d is- 20 creti o n . S ee E v a n s v . C ity o f C h i. , 513 F. 3d 735, 741 ( 7th Cir

. 2 0 0 8 ), cert
. den i ed, 12 9 S. C t. 8 9 9 (20 0 9 ). Fo r th e s am e re as on s, th e d ist ric t c ou rtac te d w ell w i thi n i ts disc re ti on i n decl i ni ng to approve a verdi ct f or m subm i tted by M s. Carl son. I t s i m plydi d not com portacc urat el y with the gov er ni ng l ega l pri nci ple s. 20

B. Th e Sect i on 198 3 M onellClaim M s. Carl son al so appeal s the di st rict co urt’ s di sm i ssa l of her M onell f ai l ur e- to-trai n c l ai m a ss er te d a g ains t th e City

. H owever, bec ause M s. C arl son’ s s ecti on 1 983 Four th A m endm ent e xces si ve f or ce c l ai m f ai l ed, her M onell c laim f a i led as w ell. Se e Je nkins v. Ba rt le tt, 48 7 F. 3d 482, 49 2 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07) ( “[ T]her e ca n be n o l i abi l i ty u n d e r M onell f o r f a i l ur e t o t r a i n whe n the r e h a s b een no v iolation of the p lai nt iff’ s con stitut ional ri gh ts.”); Wi ndl e v. City of M ar i on, Ind. , 321 F.3d 658 , 663 (7th C ir. 2003 ) (“[A ] p l ai nti ffm ust pro ve that the ind i vi du al offic er s a re liab l e o n th e u n d er lyin g s u b st an tiv e c laim in ord er to r e c over d am ages from a m un ici p ali ty un d er [a th eory of]

. . . f ail ure to trai n.”). A c c o r d in gly, w e affirm26 N o. 09

- 2578

“[T ]he d en ial of a req u est tha t the ju d g e recu se him se lf 21 un der se ct i on4 5 5 ( a ) m us tbe a ppe a l e d i m m e di a t e l y by a pplic ati on f or w ri t ofm and am us, or i t i s w aived.” U n i te d S tat es v. Hort on , 98 F .3d 31 3 , 31 6 (7t h C ir . 19 9 6 ). the di str i ct c ourt ’ s g ra nt o f s u m m ar y j ud gm ent in f avo r ofthe Cityo n the M onell c l a i m.
C. Th e D i st r i ctCourt ’ s All ege d Bia s M s. Ca r l s o n c o nt e nd s tha tthe di s t r i c tc o ur twa s b i ase d b ec au se it sh ow ed sy m p at h y fo r O ffice r B u ko vic w h en it r efer r ed to him as “ th i s po o r c o p” dur i nga pr et r i alc o nfer en c e. See A pp el l ant’ s Br. 45

- 47. M s. C ar l son does not speci fi cal l y r equest a f or m o fr el i efunder thi s theor y, bu t w e ass u m e she de m an d s a new tri al w ith a d if

feren t pr esi ding j ud ge. M s. Carl son, however, di d not m ove f orthe dist ri ct c ou rt ’ s di squal i fi cati on under 2 8 U
. S. C. § 4 55. A l though we have l eft o pen the quest i on of “ whe the r we may r e v i e w a r e fus a l t o r e c us e under sect i on 4 55(b) wh en the ar gum ent i s r ai sed f or t h e fi rs t ti m e on app eal, ” U nite d State s v. Sm ith , 21 0 F
. 3d 760, 76 4 ( 7th Ci r. 20 00) , we need not re sol ve th at iss ue to day be cau se r ec us alwas unn ec es sa r y i n thi s ca se . The 21 dist ri ct c ourt ’ s o ff

- the- cuffr em ar k di d not “displ ay a d ee p -sea ted f avo ri ti sm o r antag oni sm thatwould m ake f ai r j ud gm ent i m possibl e. ” In reH un t i ngt on Com m ons A ssoc s. , 21 F. 3d 157, 15 8 ( 7th Ci r. 19 94) ( i nter nal quotat i on m ar ks om itt ed ); s e eal s o Hook v. M cDade, 89 F. 3d 350, 35 4- 56N o. 09

- 2578 27 ( 7th Ci r. 19 96) ( describi ng the var i ous for m s o fand base s f or§ 455 re cusal )
. Our r evi ew o fthe enti re r ecord has assu red us th a t the district cou rt m an aged M s. C arlson’s case co m petentl y a nd f ai rl y. M s. Ca rls on als o appears to conte nd thatthe dist ri ct cour t was b i ase d and shoul d have be en r em ove d pur su an t to 2 8 U. S

. C. § 1 44
. Howev er, M s. C ar l so n c o nce des th ats he di d no t co m pl y wi ththe “ pr o ce dur ala nd su b st an tiv e re q u ire m en ts ” o f § 14 4. Se e U ni t e d Sta tes v. B a rnes , 909 F.2d 105 9, 1072 ( 7th Cir. 1990).

Conclusi on F o r the r ea so ns s ta te d i n th is opini o n, we affi r m the j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct c ourt
. A FFI RMED

9- 2- 10