N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
ADAM TODD SAETR

UM , Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. JAKE VOGT, Ada

C ounty De puty She riff, De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt,
and GAR Y R ANEY, Ada C ounty

She riff; TYLER STENGER , Ada

C ounty De puty She riff; KEVIN LOUW SM A, Ada C ounty De te c tive ; STEVE R OB INSON, Ada C ounty De puty She riff, De fe nda n ts. No. 15-35656 D.C . No. 1:13-c v-00425-W B S
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ida

ho W illia m B
. Shubb, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d an d Subm itte d Nove m be r 7, 2016 Subm ission W ithdra

wn Nove m

be r 9, 2016 R e subm i tte d De c e m

be r 16, 2016 Portla nd, Ore gon 

# FIL ED DEC 20 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public a tion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.B e fore : M c K EOW N, W . FLETC HER

and FISHER , C irc uit Judge s. In Fe brua ry 2013, pla intiff Ada

m Todd Sa e t

rum wa s a rre ste d for de a l ing
m arijua na . During thec ourse of his a rre s t, de fe nda

n t Ja k e Vogt a l le ge dly drove his pa trol c ar into Sa e trum

and the n e xe c u te d a

ha nds-on ta ke down, c a

using him to suffe r a c onc ussion. The

distric t c ourt de nie d Vogt’ s sum m ary judgm e nt m otion a s to Sa e trum ’ s e xc e ssive forc e c la im s a rising from e a c h of the se use s of forc e . Vogt
a ppe a ls, a rguing he is e ntitle d to qua lifie d im m unity . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, we a ffirm on the patrol c ar c l a im , a nd we re v e rse on the take down c la im
. A. The Pa trol C ar C la im 1. On the patrol c ar c la im , Vogt a rgue s the re wa s no Fourth Am e ndm e nt se iz ure be c a

use the re is insuffic ie nt e vide nc e he inte nde d to hit Sa e trum

with the patrol c ar. Se e C

ty . of Sac rame nto v . Le w is , 523 U.S. 833, 844 (1998). 1 W e disa gre e .

1 On inte rloc utory

a ppe a l from

the distric t

c ourt’ s de nia l of sum

m ary judgm e nt on the ba s is of qua lifie d im m unity , our re vie w ge ne ra lly is “ lim ite d to que stions of la

w.” J e ffe r s v . Gome z , 267 F.3d 895, 903 (9th C ir. 2001). W e m ay , howe v e r, re vie w a

distric t c ourt’ s fa c tua l de te rm ination whe n the de fe nda nt c ha lle nge s the suffic ie nc y of the e vide nc e a s to his motive
. Se e id. a t 906-10. 2A re a sona ble jury c ould find Vogt inte

ntiona lly struc k Sa e t

rum with the patrol c ar. The re is e v ide n c e in the re c ord the patrol c a r a c c e l e ra te d, turne d

towa rd Sa e trum and the n hit him . This e vide nc e is suffic ie nt for a re a sona ble jury to infe r the c onta c t wa s inte ntiona l
. Se e Unite d State s v . Ross , 626 F.2d 77, 79 (9th C ir. 1980) (a jury m ay re a sona bly infe r a pe rson inte n ds the natura l a nd proba ble
c onse q ue nc e s of his a c tions). A jury would not be

re quire d to c re dit Vogt’ s te stim ony to the c ontra

ry . Se eRe e v e

s v . Sande rson Plumbing Prods., Inc
. , 530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000) (“ [c ] re dibility de te rm inations . . . a

re jury func tions” ); Vaughn v . Te le dy n e

, Inc
. , 628 F.2d 1214, 1220 (9th C ir. 1980) (“ C a se s whe re inte nt is a prim ary issue ge ne ra l ly

are ina ppropria te for sum

m a ry judgm e nt unle ss a ll re a sona

ble infe re nc e s tha

t c ould be drawn from the e vide nc e de fe a t the pla i ntiff’ s c la im s.” ). Ac c o rdingly , the distric t c ourt prope rly de nie d sum

m ary judgm e nt on the que stion of Vogt’ s inte nt. 2 2. R unning into Sa e trum

with thepatrol c ar a lso viola te d c le arly

e sta blishe d la w. Any re a sona ble offic e r would ha

ve unde rstood using the

patrol c ar a s a

n im pa c t we a pon wa s unc o n stitutiona

l unde r the c i rc um sta

nc e s. S e e Mattos v
.

2 B e c a use the se iz ure he re involve d Vogt driving his pa trol c ar into Sa e trum , knoc king Sa e trum to the ground, thea

p plic a tion of phy sic a l forc e a lone c onstitute d a

se iz ure . Se e C

alifornia v. Hodari D. , 499 U.S. 621, 623-26 (1991) (“ An a rre st re quire s e ithe r

phy s ic a l forc e . . . or , whe re tha t is a bse nt, submission to the a sse rtion of a

uthority .” ). 3Agarano , 661 F.3d 433, 442 (9th C ir. 2011) (e n ba nc ). C a se s from

this a nd othe r c irc uits c l e a

rly e sta blishe d tha

t using a c ar a s a n im pa c t we a pon c o nstitute d

a t le a s t
a signific ant, inte rm e d iat e le ve l of forc e . Se e Young v . C ty . of Los Ange le

s , 655 F.3d 1156, 1161-62 (9th C ir. 2011) (holding use of pe ppe r spra

y and ba ton blows
wa s inte rm e diate forc e ); Bry an v . Mac Phe rson , 630 F.3d 805, 825-26 (9th C ir. 2010) (holding use

of ta s e rs in da

rt m ode and stun guns wa s inte rm e diate forc e ); Smith v . C

ity of He m e t , 394 F.3d 689, 701-02 (9th C ir. 2005) (e n ba n c ) (holding
use of pe ppe r spra

y an d a polic e se rvic e dog wa s inte rm e diat e forc e ); U nite d State

s v . Ac e v e s-Rosale s , 832 F.2d 1155, 1157 (9th C ir. 1987) (“ It is indisputa ble tha t a n a utom obile c an inflic t de a dly forc e on a

pe rson a nd tha t it c an be use d

a s a de a dly
we a pon.” ); Ludw ig v . Ande r

son , 54 F.3d 465, 473 (8th C ir. 1995) (“ an atte m pt to hit a n individual with a

m oving squa d c ar is a

n atte m pt to a ppre he nd by use of de a dly forc e ” ); Donov a n v . C

i ty of Milw auk

e e , 17 F.3d 944, 949-50 (7th C ir. 1994) (inte ntiona lly

striking a m o torc y c le with a

patrol c ar wa s “ an a

p plic a tion of de a dly forc e ” ). Our pre c e de nt furthe r e sta blishe d tha

t inte rm e d iate forc e re q

uire d m ore tha

n

“ m inim a l ” justific a tion. Se e Bry an , 630 F.3d a t 831 (whe n the gove rnm e nt ha s only a “ m inim a l inte re s t in the use of forc e a ga inst [pla intiff,] [the ] inte re st is insuffic ie nt to justify

the use of a

n inte rm e diate le ve l of forc e a ga inst a n 4individua l” ). Vogt ha s pre se n te d no justific a tion for hitting Sae trum with the patrol c ar. Ac c ordingly , the patrol c ar im pa c t viola te d c le arly

e sta blishe d la w. The distric t c ourt prope rly de nie d sum

m ary judgm e nt on thepat

rol c ar c la im
. B . The Take down C la im W ith re spe c t to the ta

ke down c la im , by

c ontra s t, Vogt’ s a c tions did not viola te c le arly e sta blishe d la w. Although we

have re c ogniz e d c onstitutiona l viola tions in a t le a st two c a se s whe re offic e rs ta c kle d suspe c ts, both c a s e s involve d gre ate r forc e and we ake r justific a tion tha n a re pre s e nt he re . S

e e Blank e nhorn v
. C ity of Orange , 485 F.3d 463, 478-79 (9th C ir. 2007) (holding offic e rs use d
e xc e ssive forc e whe n the y “ ga ng-ta c k le d” a

suspe c t who ha d c om

m itte d
m isde m e anor tre spa ss a

nd the suspe c t ne ithe r pose d a n im m e d iate thre a t nor
a tte m pte d to fle e ); Santos v
. Gate s , 287 F.3d 846, 853-54 (9th C ir. 2002) (holding offic e rs use d e xc e ssive forc e whe re a ta ke down re sulte d in a

broke n ba c k, the
c rim e wa s public intoxic a tion a nd the suspe c t ne ithe r fle d nor re siste d a rre st); se e also J ac k son v . C i ty of Bre me rton , 268 F.3d 646, 650-52 (9th C ir. 2001) (finding
no e xc e ssive forc e whe re offic e rs pushe d the pla intiff to the ground, re sulting in a broke n finge r, spra

y e d “ c he m ic a l irrita

n t” in he r ha i r and loc k e d he r in a hot pa trol
c ar to “ a djust he r attitude ” ). Ac c ordingly , e v e n a ssum ing the ta ke down involve d 5an unre a s ona ble a p plic a tion of forc e , the c ontours of thela w we re not suffic ie ntly
c le ar to put a

ny re a sona

ble offic e r on notic e tha

t ta c kling Sa e trum

would viola

te the C onstitution. Vogt is the re fore e n title d

to qua lifie d im

m unity on the ta ke down c la i m . AFFIRM E D IN PART ; RE V E RSE D IN PART . E ACH PART Y SH AL L B E AR IT S O W N CO ST S O N APPE AL .

6