## 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. 10

- 3265 M ICHAELA . B R OOKS, P laint if f-A ppell ant, v. C ITY OF A URO RA, I LLINO IS, 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 . 09 C4144

—David H . C oar, Judg e.
A RG UE D F EB RU AR Y 17, 2011

— D ECI DE D J UL Y 6, 2011

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, Chief Judg e, a nd R IPPLE a nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges . R IPPLE, Cir cu i tJudg e . M i c h ae l B ro ok s b ro u gh t t h is acti on under 4 2 U.S
. C. § 1 983 an d I l l i noi s l aw ag ai nst th e C ity of A u ro ra an d se ve ra l m u n icip al p olic e o fficer s. The co m pla i n t alleg ed that the o ffi cer s v i ol ate d M r . B roo k s’ s r i g ht s unde r the F o ur thAm en dm en t an d sta te law w h en theyar re ste d him f ordri vi ng o n a s uspen ded l i ce ns e an d f o r r es i st i nga pe ac e off icer
. The di st r i ctc o ur t g r an te d s um m ar y j udg m en t i n f av o r o fthe2 N o. 10

- 3265 defen dan ts o n the fede r alc l ai m s an d di smi ss ed th e sta te l aw cl ai m s without prej ud i ce. M r. Bro oks now appeal s. W e affirm the j ud gm en t of th e d is t r ict cou rt. M r. Broo ks’ s a cti ons w hen the offi cer s a tte m pted to ar rest hi m f ordri vi ng o n a suspended l i cense gave them pr o babl e ca us e to bel i ev e th athe was c o m m i tt i ngthe crim e of resisting a p eace officer. Th erefore, the seizu re w as valid r egard less ofw he th er M r. Brooks w as arrested f or the traffi c offen se p u r s ua nt to a vali d w arran t. F ur th er, c o nt r o l l i ngl aw a t th e ti m e o fthe i nc i den t did notcl ear l y e stabl i sh thatthe u se o fpepper spr ay w as un re as on abl e under the c i rcum sta nces; thus, the o fficers ar e e nti tl ed to qual i fi ed i m m unity o n Mr
. B r o o k s ’ s e x c e s s i v e f o r c e c l a i m.

I B AC KGR OUND A . Facts On June 1 8, 20 08, A uror a Po l i c e Depart m ent Offi cer G eorge L il l an d his part ne r, Offi cer M atth e w H ix, w ere st ak i ngo ut a b ak er y tha t th eys us pec te d t o b e a dr ug f ro nt. A t about 5: 45 p. m . , the offi cer s n oti ced a si l ver Cr o w n V ict o r i a dr i ve thr o ug h the pa r k i ngl o t adj ac en t to the b ake ry . A l though th ey caught onl y a gl i m pse ofth e d riv er, the offi cer s bo th i denti fi ed hi m as M r. B ro ok s, w h om th ey kn ew from th eir freq u en t p at ro ls i n and aro und A uror a’ s M apl e Ter ra ce ho usi ng pro j ects
. The o ffi cer s nev erhad see n M r. Bro oks dri veN o. 10

- 3265 3

M r. Brook s’ s driver’ s li cens e has been s uspend ed si nce 1993. 1 be f o r e ( us ua l l y hi s w if e d r o ve ) , s o the y r ana sea rch and l ear ned that M r. Broo ks’ s dri ver ’ s li c en se w as su sp en d ed

. B e fore th ey cou ld fol low up , how ever, 1 they w er e ca l l ed away fro m thei r st akeout t o re spond to a bur gl ar y. Offi cerLi l l l ate r fi l l ed out a t raffi c ti cket and obta i ned a warr ant f orM r. Bro oks ’ s a rr est
. Three w eek s l ate r, o n the eve ni ng o fJ uly9, Offi cer Lil l fi nal l y s er ved the ar re st w ar ra nt. Offi cer H i x w as o n v a c a t i o n, b u t O ffi c e r L i l l c o o r d i n a t e d s e r v i c e o ft he w ar ra n t w i th Of fi cer s Gar re tt W ro beland Dougl as Ra sh k o w, who wer e to a ppr o ac h Mapl e Te rra ce i n a sep arate veh icl e. O fficer Lillarri v e d at M r. Brooks ’s apa r tmentfi r st, wher e he f o und M r. Br o o k s ba rbe cuing w i th so m e fri ends and ne igh bor s o utsi de hi s a partm ent. H i s wife was i nsi de. As the b a rb e c ue wa s n e a r i ngi t s e nd , Offi c e r Li l l a ppro a c he d the g a the r i ng a nd a s k e d M r . Br o o k s t o st ep asi de so theyco uld s peak in pri vate
. The two m en knew one ano therbec ause Offi cer L illo ften was ass i gned to patr olin a n d aro und M apl e Ter ra ce. O ffice r L ill ask ed M r . B ro ok s if h e k n ew th at h is d riv er ’s lic en se w as su sp en d e d , an d M r. B ro ok s s aid that he di d. Offi cerLi l l then i nfo rm ed M r. Bro oks th at he had se en hi m dri vi n g th re e weeks ea rl i erand that ther e was a w ar ra nt o ut f orhi s a rr estf ordri vi ng o n a s uspend ed l i cense. M r. Bro oks r esp onded that h e c o u l d n o th a v e b e e n d r i v i n gth e c a r a tth a tt i me b ec au se h is car h ad n ot b ee n w or kin g, b u t O f f i c e r L ill4 N o. 10

- 3265

The s qua d ca r’ s on -boar d ca m er a c aptur ed the vid eo of 2 the s c e ne , bu ti tdi d n otr e c or d a ny s ou nd

. never thel ess to l d him thathe was under a rr est
. M r . Br o o k s st at ed th athe woul d g o wi thOffi ce r Li l l, b ut fi r sthe wanted to t el l hi s wi fe to b r i nghi s wal l eta nd i denti fi cati on t o the pol i ce s tat i on. M r. Broo ks then “b ackpeda l ed aw ayfr o m Li l l t o g o t o hi s wi ndo w to c al l up to hi s wife. W hen ask ed w hy he w as w al ki ng ba ck aw ay f r o m Li l l

. . . , he s ta ted , ‘I ’ m wal k i ngb ec au se Iwant to know w hat the r eas on [ f orthe ar re st] was. ’ ” R. 27 ¶ 40 (in te rn al c ita tio n s o m itt ed ). O f f i c er L ill follow ed in cl ose pursui t. A t thi s poi nt, Offi cer s W ro beland Rash ko w ar ri ved on th e scen e i n a squ ad car, w hos e on-board video ca m era re cor ded m osto fwh at tr anspi re d ther eafter
. The r e- 2 co r di ngo fthe c o nfr o nt at i o n b eg i ns wi ththe s ce ne alr ea d y in p ro g r es s. Inth e o p en in g s h ot, M r. B ro ok s is back pedali ng r api dlyand m ovi ng hi s a rm s in w hat ap p ea r s to b e ana tt empt t o b ata way Offi ce r Li ll ’s hand s. A ftera coupl e o f s ec on ds, M r. Bro oks st ops, sq u ar es to fac e O f f ice r L ill an d st ick s h is a rm s o u t t o h is si de i n a “ T”
. The c amer a m o ve s awayfr o m the s ce ne brie fl y a s the squ ad car turn s, bu t w he n th e cam era s e t t l e s o n th e t wo me n, Mr
. B r o o k s h a s l o we r e d h i s a r ms to sto m ach le ve l and i s f aci ng Offi cerLi l l

. The o ffi cer hol ds a ca n ofpepp er spra y in hi s r i ght ha nd and has ex te nde d hi s l eft ha nd t o M r . Br o o k s’ s ch es t. A se co nd l ate r, Offi cerLi l l fi re s a burs t o fpepper spr ay i nto M r. B ro ok s’s fac e. M r. B ro ok s b en d s o v er an d p u ts h isN o. 10

- 3265 5

At the t i m e ofM r. Bro oks ’ s ar re s t, 72 0 I LCS 5 /31

- 1( a) pr o- 3 vi ded: “A pe rs on who kno wingl y r es i s t s or obs t ru c t s the perf orm ance by one kn o w n t o t he pers on to be a peace offic er or cor re ct ional i nst itution e m ployee ofany authorize d act w ith in h is o ffici a l ca p a ci ty co m m its a C la ss A m isd em ea n o r.” sh irtto h is fa c e, at te m p tin g t o w ip e h is e ye s. O ffice r L ill approaches , acc om panie d by Offi cerRashko w , wh o has exi ted the squad c ar . Fo ur s eco nd s a fterthe fi rs t s pray, Of fi c e r Li l l a pp l i e s a s e c o nd b ur s t
. M r . Br o o ks then f al l s o ve r a law n c ha i r a nd l an ds f ac edo wn o n the grou nd , incap acitated

. T he tim e betw een M r. B rooks’s back pedali ng and hi s incapaci tat i on i s about seve nteen seco nd s, the ti m e be tw een the bac kpedal i ng a nd the fi rs t bur sto fpe ppers pr ay, abo utt en . A fterhe ha d been i m m obi l i zed, M r. Bro oks was ar re ste d, tr ansp or te d to j ai l and char ged with dri vi ng o n a su spe nde d l i ce ns e an d r es i st i nga pe ac e o ffi cer i n the perf or m an c e ofhi s duti es. H e was acqui tte d ofbo th 3 c h ar ge s in a b en c h tria l. So m e of t h e d et ails of w h at tra n sp ire d rem ain i n dis pu te. A ccor ding to M r. Bro oks and sev er alco rr oboratin g w itness es, w hos e version of event s w e are obl i ged to bel i eve atthe su m m ar y j ud gm ent s tag e, his C row n Vi ct o r i a was b r o k endo wn o n J une 1 8, s o he co ul d no t ha ve b ee n dr i vingwh en Offi ce r s Li l l a nd Hi x c l a i med t o ha v e s e e n hi m. M r . Br o o k s pr e s e nt e d a re cei pt f oran a uto part, purchase d on J une 19, wh i ch h e s a y s w as n ec es sa ry to m ak e t h e c ar ru n ag ain . In add i ti on, he int ro du ced evi dence thathe c l ai m s ca sts6 N o. 10

- 3265

M r. Bro oks i nt i m at es i n h i s depo s i t i on t es t i m ony thatthe 4 s e c on d b ur s to fp eppe r s pr a y m a y ha ve be e n fi r e d b y Of fi c e r R ashko w. Howe ve r , i ti s c l e a r fr om t he vi de ot a pe tha t bo th b u rsts w ere fired b y O fficer L ill. doubt on the abi l i ty of O fficer s Li l l and H i x to have s ee n th e C ro w n V ict or ia or its d riv er from th eir su rv eill ance posi ti on i n fro nt o fthe bake ry . M r. B ro ok s t h er efo re w as su rp ris ed w h en O ffi c er L ill told h im t ha t he h ad been seen driving an d that there w as a w ar ra n t fo r hi s a rr est
. H e a l so w as surpri sed b e c a u s e h e h a d spo k e n wi th O ffi c e r L i l l a d a y o r t wo be f o r e th e a r r es t, a nd the s ubj ec t o fthe war r an t h ad n otco m e u p . N ev er th ele ss , M r. B ro ok s s aid , “O ka y,” but to l d Offi cerLi l l thathe w as going to cal l thr ough the window to h is w ife a nd as k herto br i ng hi s wal l et and i denti fi c at ion t o the pol i ce s tat i on. R. 24- 3 a t 5 9. M r. B ro ok s t h en “b ac k[]p ed ale d ” a w ay , i d. a t 61 , b ut Offi ce r Li l l f o l l o wed a nd t old hi m tha t he was no t g o i ng to tel l anyb ody a nythi ng. Offi cerLi l l at tem p te d to gr ab M r. Bro oks ’ s wri st, but M r. Bro oks ev aded his gr asp and rai sed hi s a rm s s hou ld er l eve l i nto the a i r, sa yi ng, “W hat di d I do?, ” a nd then Offi cerLi l l “ c au gh t [ hi m ] by the a rm , and . . . spra yed the spra y. ” Id. at61

- 62. 4 M r. Bro oks ’ s t est i m ony i s uncl ea r on pre ci sel y when Offi ce r Li l l i nf o r m ed hi m tha t he was unde r a r r es t, b ut at seve ra l poi nts M r. Bro oks st at es that i t o ccurr ed bef o re he beg an backp ed ali ng . H e m aintain s, how ever, that he m ade hi s a cquie scence to the ar re st pla i n to O ffice r L ill an d th at h e n ev er at te m p te d to r e sis t. InN o. 10

- 3265 7 add i ti on, two ofM r. Bro oks ’ s nei ghbor s t est i fi ed that Offi cerLi l l r epe at ed l y di re cted r aci alsl urs at M r. Bro oks du ri ng the co urse o fthe ar re st. A ccor ding to Offi cerLi l l, wh en he ini ti al l y info rm ed M r. Broo ks that ther e w as a w ar ra nt out f or h is arr est, h e p lac ed h is h an d on M r . B ro ok s’s arm to ta ke h im i nt o custo dy. A t thi s poi nt, M r. Bro oks br oke away fro m th e o ffice r’s gra sp an d ran ba c k w a r d s. O ffice r L ill pu rs ued and is sued sev er alco m m ands to M r. Bro oks to g eto n the g r o und. Al th o ug h Offi ce r Li ll ha d no t ex pected any re sist an c e gi ven what he knew o fM r. Bro oks f ro m thei r previ ous a cquai ntance, he now fear ed that M r. Broo ks m i ght att em pt to fl ee or to att ack h im . Th er ef or e, he a dm i ni ste re d the pepper s pray, and, wh en M r . Br o o k s f a i l e d t o s ub mi t, h e r e pe a t e d h i s c o mm a nd s and adm i ni stere d the pepper s pray aga i n, atwh i ch p oin t M r. B ro ok s w as ren d er ed p ro st ra te
.
B . P roc ee d in gs Be fore th e D is tric t C ou rt M r. B ro ok s filed th is l a w s u it a ga in st O ffice rs L ill, Rashkow and W robeland thei r em plo yer, the City o fAur o r a . T he c o mpl a i nts o ughtr e c o v e r y u nd e r 4 2 U. S
. C. § 1983 f orf al se ar re st, f al se i m pri sonm ent a nd exce ssi ve for c e in v i ola tio n of th e F ou rt h A m en d m en t’s p ro h ibiti on o funrea sonab l e s ei zure s, as w el l as an a rr ay of c laim s un d er Illino is l aw . T h e d efe n d an ts as se rt e d q u alifi ed i m m unity a nd m ove d fo r sum m ar y j ud gm ent o n the federa l f al se ar re st and excess i ve f or ce c l ai m s. T h e di str i ct c ourthel d that the o ffi cer s had pro bable ca us e to b el i ev e th at M r . Br o o k s ha d c o m m i tt ed th e8 N o. 10

- 3265

cr i m e o fr es i st i nga pe ac e o ffi ce r a nd the refore thatthe d efen dan ts wer e en ti tl ed to s um m ar y j udg m en t o n the § 19 83 f al se a rres t cl ai m . M o r eo ve r, a l th o ug h the de fen dants di d not m ove f orsum m ar y j ud gm ent on the § 1 983 f al se i m pri sonm ent c l ai m , the dist ri ct c ourtdeterm in ed sua s ponte t h at the exi ste nce o fpro babl e ca use defeat ed that cl ai m as well

. Fin ally, the dist ri ct c ourthel d that the defendan ts w er e e nti tl ed to sum m ar y j ud gm ent o n the e xcessi ve f or ce c l ai m bec ause i t had notbee n cl ea r l y e st ab l i sh ed th atthe us e o fpeppe r s pr ayi n the s i tu at ion fac in g t h e o ffice rs w ou ld vio lat e t h e C on st it u t i o n . A c c o r d i n g l y, th e d i s t r i c tc o u r tgr a n t e d s u mm ar y j ud gm ent in f avo r ofthe def endants o n al l o f M r. Bro oks ’ s cl ai m s un d er federa l l aw and dis m i sse d the s up ple m en talst ate l aw cl ai m s without prej ud i ce. Th i s a pp e a l f o l l o we d.

II DI S C US S I ON A . Stan d ard of R eview an d Q u alif ied I m m u n ity W e r e v i e w th e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n t o g r a n t s u mm ar y j ud gm ent de n ov o, r eso l vi ng al l f actualdi sputes an d m ak i nga l l r ea so nabl e i nfer en ce s i n f av o r o fthe n on m ov in g p a r ty , in th is c as e, M r. B ro ok s. M cA llister v. P ri ce, 61 5 F
. 3d 877, 88 1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10 ). Su m m ar y j ud gm en t i s appr o pr i at e only i f“ th er e i s no g en ui ne d isp u te as to an y m at er ial fa c t a n d th e m ov an t is enti tl ed to j ud gm ent a s a m att ero fl aw .” Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 56(a).N o. 10

- 3265 9 P olic e o ffice rs su ed u n d er § 19 83 o f t en m ay cla im quali fi ed im m u ni ty “w hen theyacti n a m anner that they re aso nabl y b el i eve to be l aw ful. ” G onz alez v. City of Elgin , 578 F.3d 526 , 540 (7th C ir. 2 0 0 9 ). To d eterm i ne wh ethert h e defe nd ants ar e e nti tl ed to qual i fi ed i m m uni ty, we as k( 1) “ whethe r [ M r . Br o o k s’ s] a l l eg at i o ns m ak e ou t a depr i va ti o n o fa c o ns ti tu ti o na l r i g ht ” an d ( 2 ) “ wh e th e r th e r i g h tw a s c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h e d a tth e t i me of[ the defendants’ ] al l ege d m i sco nd uct. ” M cA llister, 61 5 F
. 3d at8 81
. “ W e m ay ad d ress th e pr o ng s i n whi ch

eve r or der we bel i eve best su ited t o the c i rcum sta nces of the parti cul ar case at h an d.” Id. ( ci ti ng Pears on v. Call ahan , 129 S. C t. 80 8, 81 8 (2 00 9)); s e eal s o Pe ars on , 12 9 S. Ct. at81 8, 82 1 ( hol ding that i t “ sh oul d not be r eg a r de d a s man da t o r y i n a l l c a s e s ” t o a ddr e s s f i rs t w hethera depri vati on o ccurr ed but “ re cogni z[ i ng] that i t i s o fte n benefi ci al ” a nd l eaving the se quencingchoi ce to th e d isc re tio n of th e ind ivid u a l c o u rt s); Cam r e t a v. Gre e ne, 13 1 S
. Ct. 20 20, 20 32 ( 2011 ) ( “I n ge n er al, cour ts sh ou ld th ink ha rd , an d th en th ink ha rd again , b e fore turni ng sm al l ca ses i nto l ar ge ones . ”)
. “[ P]r obab l e ca use i s a n abso l ute defense” to a cl ai m o funl aw ful ar re st in vio lat ion of th e F ou rt h A m en d m en t. G o nz a lez , 57 8 F.3 d at53 7.

B. F alse A rr est an d I m p ri son m en t On appeal, M r. Broo ks fi rs t ass er ts that the di str i ct cour t e rr ed i n granti ng sum m ar y j ud gm ent o n hi s f al se arrest an d i m p risonm en t claim s becau se th e officers l ac k ed pr o babl e ca us e to b el i eve tha t he was c o m m i tt i ng10 N o. 10

- 3265

T he officers arr ested M r. B r o o k s pu rsu an t to a facially 5 v alid w arr an t iss u ed b y a ne u tral m ag istrate. A f aci a l l y v alid warr antgener ally s hi el ds anoffi c err el yi ng i n go od f ai th o n the w arrantfro m l iabil ity f or f als e arr es t unle ss the “offic er sub m itted a n a ffid av it that co nta ined statem en ts he k ne w to be f al s e or woul d have kno wn w ere f al s e had h e not re c kl es s l y di s re gar ded the t rut h a nd no ac c ur at e i nf or m at i on sufficient to con stitute pro b ab le cau se atten d ed the fa l se s t a t e m e nt s. ” Law so n v. Ver uchi, 637 F. 3d 699, 704 ( 7th Cir

. 20 11 ) ( quotatio n m ar ks om i t t ed)

. M r. Bro oks as s er t s thathe “prese nted f act s dem onst rat ing that Lill ’ s sworn stat em ent that le d the w ay f or the w a rrant w as a s ham

. ” Ap pell ant’ s Br. 16. Bec aus e we det er m i ne thats um m ar y j udgm en t w as appr opriat e on a diff erentground , w e decl ine to r each this i ss ue. th e cr i m e o fr es i st i nga pe ac e o ffi ce r . S pec i fi ca l l y, he con ten d s tha t the confli cting ev iden ce creat es a j ury questi on with re spect to w heth erM r. Bro oks was resisting arrest or w as com p lyi ng w ith O fficer Lill ’s o r d e r s . I n a d d i t i o n, Mr
. B r o o k s c o n t e n d s th a ta g en ui ne dispute ofm ate ri alf act rem ai ns r ega rdi ng wh ether O ffice r L ill pr oc u re d th e a rre st w ar ra n t u sin g k n ow in gly fals e t es tim on y, w h ich , M r. B ro o k s b elie ve s, w ou ld m ake hi s a rr estan unre aso nabl e s ei zure . 5 W e c an n o t ac c ep t t h is a rg u m en t. W h et h er p ro b ab le cause exi sts atthe ti m e o fan a rres t depends on whether “t h e fac ts an d c irc u m st an c es w ith in th e office r’ s k n ow ledge .

. . ar e s uffi ci ent t o w ar ra nt a pruden t p er son, o r o n e o fr e a s o n a b l e c a u t i o n, i n b e l i e v i n g, i n th e c i r c u ms t a n c e s s h o wn, th a tth e s u s p e c th a s c o mmi t t e d, i s c o mm itti ng, o r i s about to com m i t a n offense. ” Gonzalez ,N o. 10

- 3265 11

Seeal so 72 0 IL C S 5/7-7 (“A p erso n is no t au tho rized to u se 6 f orce to res ist a n arre stw hich he know s is being m ade either by a pea c e offi c er or by a pri vat e per s on s um m one d and di re c t ed by a pea c e offi c ert o m ake the ar re s t, e veni fhe beli eves thatthe arre sti s u n la w ful and the ar res t i n f act is u n la w fu l.” ). I n h i s br i ef s onappe al, M r. Bro oks den i es thathe 7 

### (continued...) 578 F
. 3d at5 37( i nt erna l quo ta ti o n mar k s o m i tt ed) ( alteratio n i n or i gi nal )
. I n I l l i noi s, the cri m e o fr esi sti ng a peace offi cer invo l ves the c om m i ssi on o f“a physi calact ofr esi sta nce o r obs tr ucti on . . . t h at i m pedes, hi nd er s, i nter rupts, pre vents , o r del ays the perf or m an ce o f th e o ffice r’s d u tie s, su c h as by goin g lim p or for c efu lly re si sti ng ar re st. ” Peop l ev. Agne w-Dow ns , 93 6 N
. E.2 d 166, 17 3 ( I l l

. A pp . Ct. 20 10) . I l l i noi s co urts defi ne “r esi sti ng” o r “r esi sta nce” a s “ w i th st an ding the for ce o r eff ect of or t h e exert i on o fo nesel fto co untera ct o r def eat
. ” Id. I m p ortantl y foro ur purpose s, “[ r] esi sti ng ev en anunl awfula r r es t o fa kno wn po l i ce o fficer vio l at es the sta tute. ” Har dr i ckv. C ity of Bol i ngb r ook, 52 2 F
. 3d 758, 762 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) ( ci ting Peop l ev. Vi l l ar r e al , 60 4 N
. E.2 d 92 3, 92 6- 27 ( I l l

. 1992), and P eop le v. Lo ck en , 32 2 N
. E.2 d 51, 53-54 (I ll

. 1974)). 6 I n the prese nt cas e, M r. Bro ok s an d Offi cerLi l lbo th tes ti fi ed that, aft erOffi cerLi l l i nfo rm ed hi m thathe was und erar re st , M r. Bro ok s ba ckpedal ed away, es caped O ffice r L i l l ’s a tt em p t t o gr ab h is w ris t a n d rais ed h is a r ms t o h i s s h o u l d e r s . F u r th e r, th e v i d e o t a p e s h o ws 712 N o. 10

- 3265



### (...continued) b a c k t r a c k e d o r a t t e m p t e d to b r e a k a w a y fr o m O ffi c e r L i l l ’s g r a s p . Ho we v e r , th e s e d e n i a l s c o n t r a di c tMr
. B r o o k s ’ s o wn depos i tion te s t i m ony and h i s adm i s s i ons ons um m ar y j udgm en t in the d istrict cou rt. that M r. Bro oks r epeate dly, p hysi cal l y r ebuffed Offi cer L ill’ s a tte m pts to gr asp hi m and that, afterhe ha d sto pp ed backtr acking, M r. Bro oks tur ned to f ace Offi cer Lil l and thr ew o ut hi s a rm s in w ha t co uld be co nstr ued as a r esi sti ng o r defe nsi ve postur e. A l thoug h ther e m ay be a ge nuine dispute ofm ate ri al fact w i th r espectto wh etherM r. Bro oks i ntenti onal ly att em pted to “w i thsta nd [ ] the f or ce o r effect of” Offi cer L i l l ’ s e ff o r t s t o a r r e s th i m in s u c h a w a y a s to “ i mpede [ ] , hi nde r[] , i nt er r upt [ ] , pr ev en t[ ] , o r de l ay [ ] the pe r f o r man c e o f[ Offi c e r Li l l ’ s ] du t i e s , ” A gne w-Dow ns , 93 6 N
. E.2 d at 1 73, the und i sputed f acts suffi ce t o est abl i sh thata re aso nabl e o ffi cer c ou l d have be l i eve d that he di d. That r eas onabl e be l i efi s no t e nough t o c o n v i c t Mr
. B r o o k s o fth e c r i me

— as att est ed to by hi s s tat e- cour t a cquit tal

—buti t i s en o ug h t o c l o akthe offic er s w ith im m u n ity fr o m su it. Se eW he e l e rv. La wson , 539 F.3d 629, 634 (7th Cir. 2008). M or eov er , al though Offi cerLi l l at tem pted to sei ze M r. Bro oks befor e pr obab l e ca use for re si sti ng ar re st ar ose , M r. Bro oks ’ s e vasi on o fdetent i on m eans that a su cc essfulF o ur thAm en dm en t se i zu r e di d no t o cc ur unti l afterM r. Bro oks was i ncapaci tat ed by the pep p er sp ra y. See A cev edo v. C a nterbu ry, 45 7 F
. 3d 721, 72 5 ( 7thN o. 10

- 3265 13

Se e Ca l i f o r nia v . Ho d a r iD. , 49 9 U. S. 62 1, 62 6- 29 ( 19 90 ) ( hol di ng 8 that, w hen a poli ce of fic er has att em pted to effect a stop or an ar res twith a n a s s er t i on ofauthor i t y, a Four th Am en dm en t seizu re d oe s no t oc c u r un less the su sp ect actu ally yield s to th e a sse rt io n ). Cir
. 20 06) ( expla i ni ng tha t physi calf or ce that, under th e to ta l i tyo fthe c i r cumst an ce s, do es no t “de tai n the p lain tiff s ign i f i c a n t ly” is n ota se izu re ); se e also Califor nia v . Ho d a r iD. , 49 9 U.S
. 62 1 ( 1990 )
. O ffice r Lil l te sti fi ed that, a ft e r h e h a d info r med Mr
. Br o o k s tha th e was und erar re st, he pl aced his h an d on M r. Bro oks ’ s wri st i n a n a t t e mptt o h a nd c uffh i m, b utMr
. B ro oks “ mad e a j er ki ng m oti on a nd br oke fre e o f[ Offi cerLi l l ’ s] g r as p. ” R. 28

- 3 at1 5. Al th o ug h a s ei zu r e ca n o cc ur eve n w here “the r est rain t on the i nd i vi du al ’ s fre edom ofm ove m ent i s br i ef, ” her e the i ni ti algr asp d id not “detai n [ M r. Bro oks ] si gni fi cantl y. ” Ace ve do , 45 7 F
. 3d at 724- 25. I nd eed, M r. Bro ok s m ai ntai ns that h i s fre edom ofm ovem en t w as not curta i l ed at al l unti l afterhe ha d b ac kp ed ale d aw ay from th e o f f i c er . See R. 24- 3 a t 6 0- 61. The at te m p ted se i zure beg an wh en Of fi cerLi l l went to l ay hand s o n M r. B rook s, but M r. Bro oks ’ s r esi sta nce pr e v e nt e d the a c t i o n f r o m r e a ch i ngi t s c o mpl e t i o n, a nd , un d er C a l i

f o r n i a v . Ho d a r iD. , 499 U .S . 6 21, 626-29 (1990), Offi cerLi l l ’ s decl ar ati on that M r. Bro ok s w as und er ar re st d id n otsu ffice to es ta b lish a se izu re u n til M r . Br o o k s fi na l l y s ub mi t t e d. 8 T hu s, w e ne ed not con side r w he th er O fficer L il l’ s w ar ra nt was proc ured with f als e t est i m ony, bec ause, at14 N o. 10

- 3265

Further, M r. Broo ks does notpres ent any evidence that 9 O ffic ers W robel or R ashkow knew that the w arrant w as i nv a l i d ; th e r e f o r e , th e i r r e l i a n c e o n th e wa r r a n t wo u l d b e suffic ie nt t o grant them quali fie d i m m unity even i fthe re w er e n o p ro b a b le ca u se for th e r es ist a n ce ch a rg e. Se e H ol m es v. Vi l l
. of

Hof f m an E st ates , 51 1 F .3d 67 3 , 68 0 (7t h C ir . 20 0 7 ). M r. Brook s subm it s that, acc ording to the Il li nois cas es 10 on whic h H ar dri ck v. C i ty of Bol ing b rook, 52 2 F .3d 758 , 76 2 (7th C ir . 20 0 8 ), rel ie s, Peopl e v. Vi l l ar re al, 60 4 N .E .2d 92 3 (Ill . 19 9 2 ), a nd P eoplev. L o c ken , 32 2 N .E. 2d 51 (Ill. 197 4), this p rinc ip le bar s the arrestee’ s de f en s e t o c ri m i nall i abi l i t y, buti tdoe s no t evis cer ate any s ub se quent ci vil rem edies to w hich h e m ay b e en titled

. W ha tev er th e m erits of this con ten tion w ith re s pect t o I l l i noi s l aw, M r. Bro oks ’ s r em edy f or unl awful s ei zur e underthe Four th Am en dm entdepe nds e nt i re l y on whethe r the of fi c er s ha d pro babl e c aus e t o be l i eve thathe w as cri m inal ly l iable f or re si st ing a peace offic er. the t i me M r . Br o o k s wa s s e i z e d, the o ffi c e rs had p robab le cause to a r r e s t him f or resi sting a p eace officer. See D even pec kv. A lfo rd , 5 43 U
. S. 14 6, 15 3- 55 ( 2004 ) ( hol ding that, i fan o ffi cerhas p ro babl e ca use t o ar re st a su spe ctf or a ny c r i m e, the r e i s no F o ur thAm en dm en t vi ol ati on e ven i fthe offi cerl acke d probabl e ca use w ith re sp ec t to th e ac tu al off e n s e ch ar ge d ); Wi l l i am s v. R o drig uez , 5 09 F
. 3d 39 2, 3 99 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7) ( exp lai ning that an offic er ’ s s ubj ecti ve re aso n f orm aki ng an ar re st is i m m a t e ria l so lon g a s “ a re as on ab le offic er . . . w ou ld have had probabl e ca use t o ar re st [ the pl ai nti ff] f or an y o ff en se ”)
. Be ca us e “[ r ] es i st i nge ve n a n un l awful 9 ar re st of a kn ow n p olic e o ffice r vio lat es t h e st at u te ,” Hardri ck, 52 2 F
. 3d at 762, Offi cerLi llwould have had 10N o. 10

- 3265 15 probabl e ca use t o ar re st M r. B ro oks f orr esi sti ng a p ea c e o ffice r ev en if th e s to ry th at h e a n d O ffi c er H ix had tol d about see i ng M r. Bro oks behi nd the w heelhad been a r ank f abr i cati on. U nd erthes e ci rcum sta nces, M r. Bro oks ’ s r em edy f orthe al l ege dlyunl aw ful proc u rem en t o fthe war r an t i s a cl ai m f or mal i ci o us pr o se cutio n u n d er st at e la w , no t a f ed er al c on st itu tio n al c laim for fals e a rre st u n d er § 19 83
. Se eHol m e s v. Vi l l
. of H o ffm a n E stat es , 5 11 F
. 3d 67 3, 6 82 ( 7th C ir. 2 00 7) ( ho l di ng th at “p ro b ab le c au se as to on e c h ar ge w ill no t b ar a m alici ous pr ose cuti on cl ai m bas ed on a se cond, d isti nct ch ar g e as t o whi chpr o babl e ca us e was l ac ki ng ”)
. The di st r i ctc o ur t di sm i ss ed M r . Br o o k s’ s m al i ci o us pr o se cutio n cla im w ith ou t p rej u d ice , l ea vin g h i m free to refile that cl ai m i n sta te cour t. M r. Bro oks al so co n te n ds that the di str i ct c ourter re d by sua s pontegr anti ng the defendants sum m ar y j ud gm ent o n the f al se i m pri sonm en t cl ai m witho ut fi rs t off er in g M r. Bro oks a chance t o re spond and m ar shal hi s e vid ence. The di str i ct c ourthel d that the f al se i m pri so nm en t cl ai m f o unde r ed f or th e s ame r ea so n a s th e f al se a r r es t cl ai m . W e ag r ee . Al th o ug h Mr. Brook s m ainta i ns tha t cl ai m s f o r f al se a rrest an d f al se i m pr i so nm en t ar e an al y ti ca l l y di st i nct, he do es no t ex pl ain why the probabl e cause i nquir y w oul d b e differ ent f orh is fa l se i m pr i so nm en t cl ai m unde r the se c ircumst an ce s, a nd w e c an n otp er c eiv e a n y re as on th at it w ou ld be

.
C. Ex cessi ve For ce Fin ally , M r. B ro ok s c h alle n ge s t h e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s d ec isi on that the offi cer s a re enti tl ed to qual i fi ed i m m unity16 N o. 10

- 3265

SeeVi nyard v. Wi l so n , 311 F. 3d 1340, 134 8 & n. 12 ( 11th Cir

. 11 2 0 0 2 ). See, e . g. , G o n z a lez v . C ity o f E lg in , 578 F. 3d 526, 541 (7th Cir. 12 2 0 0 9 ); seeal so Tra c y v . F res hw ater, 623 F. 3d 90, 98- 99 ( 2d C ir
. 

### (continued...) on the exce ssi ve f or ce c l ai m . Even w h en a pol i ce o ffi cer has probabl e cause to execute an ar re st, he still m ay ha ve c o m m i tt ed anunr ea so nable s ei zu r e “i f, j udg i ng f r o m the t o ta l i tyo fc i r cumst an ce s atthe t i m e o fthe ar re st, th e office r u se d gr ea te r for c e th an w as rea so n ab ly necess ar y t o m ake the ar re st. ” G o nz a lez , 578 F.3 d at 53 9 (in te rn al q u ot at ion m ar ks om itt ed ). In m a k i n g th is deter m i nati on , the Suprem e Cour t has di re cted us to consi der ( 1) “ ‘ the s eve ri ty ofth e cri m e a t i ssue’ ”; ( 2) “ ‘ whethe r the s us pec t po se s ani m m edi at e th r ea t t o the sa fet y of t h e o ffice rs or ot h er s’ ”; an d (3) “ ‘w h et h er h e is acti vel y r esi sti ng ar re st o r att em pti ng to ev ade ar re st by fl i ght. ’ ” Cyr us v. Town of M ukwonag o , 624 F. 3d 856, 86 1 ( 7th Cir
. 2010) ( quoti ng Grah am v. Conno r, 49 0 U.S
. 38 6, 39 6 ( 1989 ) )
. A ccor ding to M r. Bro oks , the use ofpepper spr ay ag ains t hi m was a n un reason abl e us e o ff o r ce g i ve n the re l ati vel y m i nornatur e o fthe traff i c o ffense, the l ack of a th reat to officer or p ub li c safety an d Officer L il l’ s kn ow led g e t h at M r. B ro ok s in te n d ed on ly to te ll his w ife t o follo w h im to th e p olic e s ta tio n . Courts often have hel d that i t i s r eas onabl e t o use peppe r spr ayag ains t a sus pec t who i s phy si ca l l y r es i st i ng ar re st ; co n ve rs ely , w h en th e u se of p ep p er sp ra y is

11 gr atui tous orunprovo ked , c ourt s o ften hav e co nsi dered i t e x c es sive
. Se ege ne r al l y Vi nyar d v
. Wi l s on , 31 1 F
. 3d 12N o. 10

- 3265 17



### (...continued) 2 0 1 0 ); He nderso n v . M unn , 43 9 F .3d 49 7, 50 2 -0 3 (8t h C ir . 20 0 6 ); Vi n yard , 311 F
. 3d at 1348- 49; A dams v. M et i va , 31 F. 3d 375, 3 8 7(6t h C ir . 19 9 4 ). 1 3 4 0 , 1 3 4 8 & n n . 1 1

- 1 2 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2 0 0 2 ) ( c i ti n gc a s e s )
. As w e hav e s tat ed, a re aso nabl e pol i ce o ffi cercou ld have be l i ev ed th atM r . Br o o k s was r es i st i nga r r es t. Al th o ug h, at thi s s tag e o fthe l i ti gat i on, we m us t bel i eve M r. Bro oks w hen he says thathe ha d com m unica ted hi s wil l i ngness to s ubmi t to a r r es t, his act i o ns r ea di l y c o ul d b e co nstr ued t o bel i e hi s w or ds; i nd eed, M r. Brooks em p l oye d a nu m ber o f m oves d esigned to thw art O fficer Lill ’s att em pts to ta ke hi m i nto custod y. A dd i ti onal l y, gi ven the uni que ri sks thateffecting an i n-ho m e a rr est w ar ra nt pose s t o the arre st ing o ffi cer s, Offi cerLi l l had a r e c o g ni z e d int e re s ti n t a k i ngMr
. Br o o k s i nt o c us t o dy ou ts id e h is a p ar tm en t. See M aryland v . B uie, 49 4 U.S
. 32 5, 333 ( 1990 ) ( “[ U ] nl i ke an encounter on the st re et or al o ng a hi g hway, a n i n- ho m e ar r es t put s th e o ffi ce r a t th e d i s a d v a n t a g e o fb e i n go n hi s a d v e r s a r y ’ s ‘ t u r f

. ’ An am bush i n a c onfi ned s ett i ng o funknown co nfi gura ti on i s m ore to b e fe ar ed than i t i s in open, m or e f am i l i ar su r r o undi ng s. ”)
. An o ffi ce r, f aced wi tha s us pec t fl ee i ng toward hi s ho m e a nd i gnor i ng police c om m ands, i s no t obl i ged to gi ve that suspect an o pp or tuni ty to re tr eat i nto hi s ho m e a nd , per haps, to fo rt i fy hi m sel fo r to es cape be f or e the o ffi cerem plo ys re aso nabl e m eans of in c ap ac i ta tio n . C

f. U nite d State s v. N orris , 64 0 F
. 3d 295, 303 ( 7th C ir. 20 11) ( hol ding that an o ffi cer ’ s s i ngl e use ofa tas erwas re aso nabl e where u se d to s ubdu e a n18 N o. 10

- 3265

ar re ste e who had f ai l ed t o accede t o re peated pol i ce com m an d s to stop his retreat into his hom e). M r. Bro oks co ntends, however , t hat the pepper s pray was no t appl i ed unt i l he ha d c ea se d b ac k tr acki ng a nd w as passi vel y f aci ng the o ffi cer s, and thi s d escr i pti on ofev ents at le ast ar guabl y s quares with the vi deo. A ccor ding to M r. Bro oks , pep p er spra y there f or e was not needed to eff ect hi s a rr est
. W e need not deci de w hether a const i tuti onal v iola ti on occur re d because we bel i eve thati t would nothave been obvi ou s to a r eas onabl e pol i ce o ffi ceri n Offi cer Lil l ’ s pos i ti on that the appli cati on o fpep per spraywas unlawful

. T o b e sure, wh etherand how m uch f or ce i s r eas onabl e in a gi ven s i tuati on ca n change as the s i tuati on deve lop s, and w hat i s a pp ro pri ate ato ne poi nt m ay b e u n n ec es sa ry lat er on . Se eCyr us , 62 4 F
. 3d at 863. Yet contr ol l i ng l aw w ou ld not hav e co m m unica ted to a re asonab l e o ffi cer the i l l ega l i ty ofapply i ng pepper s pray to an ar re ste e w h o has ce ase d acti ve, physi calr esi sta nce for a coupl e o fse conds but has no t s ubm i tte d to the officer’s autho r i ty, ha s no t be ent ak eni nt o c us to dy an d sti l l ar guabl y c oul d pose a thr eato f flight o r further re si sta nce. Pri orcas es have chart ed onl y c l ear erwaters
. Se e, e . g. , Tracy v . Fresh w a ter, 62 3 F
. 3d 90, 99 ( 2d Cir

. 20 10) ( potenti al l y unre aso nabl e t o “appl[ y] pepper spr ay after[ ar re ste e] had al ready bee n handcu ffed and w as offering no p hy sical r esistan ce of poli ce com m an d s”); He nde rs on v. M unn , 43 9 F
. 3d 497, 50 3- 04 ( 8th C ir. 20 06) ( unr ea so nabl e to us e peppe r s pr aya g ains t so m eo ne
“ l y i n gf a c e do wno n th e g r o u n d w i th b o th a r ms h an d c u ffed be h in d h is b ac k” ); Viny a rd, 311 F. 3d at 13 49N o. 10

- 3265 19 ( unreas onabl e t o ap p ly p epper s pray to a wom an “und e r a r r e s tf o r o ffe ns e s o fmi no r s e v e r i t y, h a nd c uffe d, secur ed i n the backo fa patro l car, and posi ng no thre at to [th e o ffice r], h er se lf or th e p u b lic” ); Head w a ters Fore s tD e

f
. v. Cnty. of

H um b ol dt, 2 7 6 F
. 3 d 1 1 2 5 , 1 130 ( 9th Cir
. 20 02) ( sta ti ng tha t “ the use o fpepper spr ay m ay be r e a s o nab l e a s a g e ne r a l p o l i c y t o b r i nga n ar re ste e und erco ntro l, b ut i n a s i tuati on i n w hi ch an a rr est ee su rre n d er s an d is ren d er ed h elp les s, an y r e a s on ab le offi cerwould know that a c on ti nued use ofthe w eapon o r a r efus al wi th o ut ca us e to al l ev i at e i ts har m ful effect s co nsti tutes exce ssi ve f or ce” ( i nter nal quotat i on m arks an d em p ha sis om itted ))
. I nd eed , gi ven M r. Brooks ’s p revious ac tion s and his f ail ure to f oll ow Offi cer L il l’ s com m ands to ge t o n the gr ound , it w oul d not hav e been obvi ous t o Offi cerLi l l thatev en the se cond appli cation of th e pe p p er sp ray w as no t “a reaso n a bly prop orti o na te respo ns e” t o g ain Mr. Br o o k s’ s co o per at i o n a nd t o a v e r t“ a n e s c a l a t i o n o fv i o l e nc e. ” N orris , 64 0 F
. 3d at 30 3 ( i nt erna l quo ta ti o n mar k s o m i tt ed ). A s su ch, the o ffi ce r s ar e en ti tl ed to qua l i fi ed i m m uni ty, a nd the d ist ric t c ou rtp ro p er ly gr an te d su m m a r y j u d gm en t in f a v o r o fth e d e f e n d a n t s o n th e e x c e s s i v e f o r c e c l a i m.
Conclusi on Fo r the for ego i ng r eas ons, the j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct c o ur ti s a ffi r med

. A FFI RMED

7- 6- 11