## 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. 08

- 2436 J OE B AIRD , etal. , P la intif fs-A pp ellees , v. J OHN R ENBAR GER, D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our tfo r the S outhernDi stricto f Indian a, Indian apo lisDiv isi on. No . 1:06- cv-1150- DFH-WTL

—David F. H amil ton, Chief Judge.
A RG UE D J AN UA RY 16, 2009

— D ECI DE D A UGUS T 3, 2009

Befo re B AUER, F LA UM, an d W OO D , C ircu it Judges. W OO D , C i r c u it Judge. L aw en for c em en t is a d ifficu lt j ob, as “pol i ce o ffi cer s a re o ften f or ced to m ake spl i t- seco nd j ud gm ents

— i n ci rcum sta nc es that ar e t ense, uncert ai n, and ra pidl y e vol vi ng. ” Grah a m v . Conno r, 49 0 U. S

. 3 86 , 3 97( 19 89 )
. Thi s reali tyi s r efl ec te d i n the f act that cour ts gi ve consi derabl e l eew ay t o l aw enf or cem ent o f fi cer s’ as ses sm ents about the a pp ro pri ate use off or ce in danger ous s i tuati ons. S ee, e. g. , Scott v. H arris ,2 N o. 08

- 2436 550 U
. S. 372, 385-86 (2007 ). Th is l atitud e e nd s, how ever, w h en p olic e o ffice rs em p loy forc e t h at is cle ar ly excess i ve orunrea sonab l e under the c i rcum sta nces. That i s the ca se here

. Offi cerJ ohn Renbar gerpart i ci pated i n the ex ec u tio n of a s ea r chwar r an t th atwas b as ed o n the c r i m e o fa l te r i ng a v e h i c l e i d e n t i fi c a t i o n n u mb e r ( “ V I N” )
. T h e c r i me i tse l f d oe s not i nvol ve vi ol ence; ther e was no sugge sti on that a ny on e at the s ear ch l oca ti on was ar m ed or dangero us; and no o ne atthe si te prese nted any re si sta nce. Despit e thi s, Renbar gerdeci ded to wiel d a 9- m i l lim eter su bmach i ne g un, wh ich he us ed to de ta i n v ar i o us peo pl e at th e s ea r chs i te
. The s ea r che nde d whenthe offi cer s co ncl ud ed that the VI N had not actual l y b een a l t e r e d. T h e p eo p le w h o h ad b ee n h eld te m p or ar ily filed su it und er42 U
. S. C. § 1 983 al l egi ng vi ol ati ons ofthe Four th A m en d m en t a n d st at e la w . O u r ap p ea l, h ow ev er , d ea ls onl y with the cl ai m s o fexce ssive fo rce ag ai nst Re nb ar g er, who fi l ed a m o ti o n for s um m ar y j udg m en t on th e b a s is ofqu ali fi ed i m m un ity. Th e d istri ct cou rt d en ied h is m otion, an d R e n b a r g er has taken an interl o c u t o r y a p p e a l fr o m th a to r d e r . We a ffi r m.

I Be c a u s e R e nb a r g e r a r g u e s th a tth e d i s t r i c tc o u r tc o mm i tt ed l eg ale r r o r i n i ts qua l i fi ed i m m uni tya na l y si s, “ th e cour t o fappeal s c an si m plyta ke, as gi ven, the f acts that th e d istri ct cou rt assu m ed w h e n it den ied su m m aryN o. 08

- 2436 3 j ud gm ent for that( pu re l y l ega l ) r eas on. ” Jo hn son v. Jon es , 515 U
. S

. 3 0 4 , 3 1 9 ( 1 9 9 5 )
. We s ummar i z e the f a c t s se t f or th i n the dist ri ct cour t opi n ion . S ee Sh elby Ind us. P a rk v. C ity of Shel byvill e, 20 08 U
. S. Dist. L E XI S 3827 2, 5- 18 (S. D
. I nd

. M ay 9, 2008 ). Joe B ai rd and Randy Robi nson j oi ntl y o w ned Shelby I nd ustr i alPar k i n Shelbyvi l l e, I n d i ana. Robi nson o w ned Ra ndy ’ s Auto Sal es , a pr i va te a ut o m o bi l e bo dy sh o p a nd re sal e business, and B air d had his own bo dy shop f or anti que car s a nd m oto rcy cl es. Both o fthes e businesse s w er e ho used i n the park. Se ver alye ar s be f or e the i nci dents in th is c as e, B air d b ou gh t a 19 37 L in c oln Z ep h yr in or der “to m ake a hot ro d out o fi t. ” Because the carhad an o ut
- o f

- st at e ti tl e, Ba i r d ha d hi s o ffi ce mana g erc al l the S he lby vi l l e Po l i ce De par tmentt o c o m e an d c he ckthe v e h i c l e ’ s mo t o r n u mb e r, th e a n t i q u e e q u i v a l e n to fa V I N. O ffi cerM cCrack en r esponded to the c al l, exam i ned the V I N , a nd s i g ne d a n a ffi dav i t ve r i fy i ngi t. W he n h e r e t ur ne d t o the p o l i c e de pa r t men t, h owe v e r, h e c a l l e d a pros ecuto r to express hi s be l i efthatthe VIN h ad bee n al ter ed . M cCrack en the n obt ai ned a se ar ch w ar ra nt f or th e Z ep hyr, a nd the ne xtmor ni nghe wentt o the in du str i alparkto exec ute i t. Tw o othe r Shelbyvi l l e pol i ce officers ( one of w hom i s the a p p e ll an t, John Ren barger), t w o I n d ian ap olis p olic e o ffice rs , an d Jam es B ea rd , a m em bero ft he N ati onalI nsurance Cri m e Burea u, acc o mp a n i e d h i m. N o o f fi ce r inv ol ve d ha d r epo r te d ha vi nga ny suspi ci on that a nyone at the i nd ustr i al park w as ar m ed or dangero us. N eve rthel es s, Renbarg ersl ung a 9

- m i l l i m ete r4 N o. 08

- 2436

su bmach i ne g un a r o und h i s ne ck

. M cCra ck ena nd Renbarg er t h en ent er ed Bai rd’ s s hop, and M cCrack en to l d the pe o pl e th er e to g eti n the c en te r o fthe b ui l di ng a nd to s i tdo wn o n the c o nc r e t e . Ev e r y o ne c o mpl i e d. Po i nt i nghi s s ubm ac hi ne g un, Re nb ar g err o unde d up a ny o ne i n t he s ur r o un ding s ho ps a nd wa r e ho us e , i nc l ud

i ng a gr oup ofA m i sh m en w ho were w or ki ng nea rby

. H e co l l ec te d i den ti fi ca ti o n fr o m everyon e, e xc eptf o r the Am i sh, a nd he l d the m f o r a r o und t wo h o ur s whi l e th e searc h w as co m p lete d

. M ean w hile, the oth er officers detai ned ever yone i n Robi nson’ s s hop and se ar ched f or th e Zephyr. The Robi nson g ro up , to o, were enti rely c o mp l i a n t
. Wh e n th e o ffi c e r s f o u n d th e c a r, B e a r d e x a min ed th e V IN an d co n c l u d ed th at it h ad n ot be en alter ed. The o f fi cer s then l eft. P lain tiffs fi l e d su it a ga in st th e o ffice rs inv olv ed in the s ear ch and thei r em plo yer s under 42 U
. S. C. § 1 983 a l l e g i n gv i o l a t i o n s o fth e F o u r th A me n d me n ta n d c l a i ms und erst ate l aw f or tr espass , negl i gence , and fa l se i m pri sonm ent. The di str i ct c ourtd i spose d ofm any o fthes e cl ai m s bygr anti ng sum m ar y j ud gm ent to the defendants, buti t den i ed Re nb ar g er ’ s m o ti o n f o r s um m ar y j udg m en t on t he b a s i s o fqua l i fi e d i mm un i t y . Empl o y i ngthe te st f r o m Saucierv. Ka tz , 53 3 U.S

. 19 4, 201 (2 00 1), the dist ri ct co ur t fi r stc o nc l ude d tha t “a r ea so nabl e j ur y c o ul d fi nd that i t w as obj ecti vel y unreas onabl e f orOffi cerRenbar ger to roun d up and de tain th e ind ivi d ua ls i n J o e B aird’s shop by ai m i ng a subm ach i ne gun a t them

. ” S ee Shelb y Ind us. P a rk, 2 00 8 U. S

. Di st
. LEXI S 3 82 72 , at 41

- 42
. The n, the di st r i ctc o ur t he l d tha t “a j ur y c o ul d fi nd tha t hi s ac ti o ns w er e s o unreas onabl e that they woul d vi ol ate cl earlyN o. 08

- 2436 5 est abl i shed l aw u nd erthe Fo urth Am endm ent, ” co m ple ti ng st ep two ofthe Sa uc ier test an d viti ating R enbarger’s q u alifie d im m u n ity d efe n se . Id. at 47.

II A deni alo fa cl ai m o fqual i fi ed i m m unity i s “ an a pp e a l a b l e ‘ fi na l de c i s i o n’ wi thi n the me a ni ngo f2 8 U. S

. C. § 1 29 1 n ot w ith st an d in g t h e a b se n c e o f a fin al jud gm en t.” M it chel l v. Fors yth , 472 U
. S. 511, 5 3 0 ( 1985 ). Th is court r ev i ews the di st r i ctc o ur t’s deni alo fs um m ar y j udg m en t on qual i fi ed i m m unity g ro un ds deno vo . Jew ett v. A nd ers , 521 F.3d 818, 821 (7th Cir. 2008). P u b lic off icia ls a re sh ield ed f ro m liab ility if th eir conduct does not vi ol ate the cl ear l y e stabl i shed ri ghts of w h ich a re a s o n a b le offic ial w ou ld h av e k n ow n . H ar l ow v. Fitzgerald, 4 5 7U. S

. 8 0 0 , 8 1 8 ( 1 9 8 2 )
. F o r s o me t i me n o w, cour ts have approached the qual i fied im m unity quest i on u sin g a tw o-s te p inq u iry
. Sa uc ier, 5 33 U. S

. a t 20 1. F i r st, the cour t dete rm ines w hethera const i tuti onalr i ght ha s been vi ol ate d. I fi t fi nd s a vi ol ati on, i t th en a sks w hether the right was cl ear l y e stabl i shed at the t i m e the o ffi ci al acte d. The Suprem e Cour t r ecent l y hel d th at the Sa uc ier test i s no t m andator y a nd thatl ower co urts m ay deci de, i n th e i r d i s c r e t i o n, i n wh i c h o r d e r t o a n s we r th e s e t wo q u es tio n s. Pears on v. Cal l ahan , 12 9 S

. Ct. 808 , 8 18- 22 ( 20 09 )
. Be ca us e we b el i ev e th ati t i s us eful i n r es o l vi ng thi s ca se, we el ect to f ol l ow the Sa uc ier approach here

. The pla i nti f f s al l ege that Renbarg ervi ol ate d thei r Four th A m en d m en t ri gh ts th roug h an un reason a ble seizure6 N o. 08

- 2436 done w i th the use of exces siv e fo rce

— i n part i cul ar, by u sin g a s u b m a c h in e g u n to rou n d th em u p an d d et ain th em dur i ngthe s ea r ch

. The que st i o n whe th erthe se i zur e was unr ea so nabl e unde r the F o ur thAm en dm en t depend s o n w hetherit w as obj ecti vel y r eas onabl e, j ud ged f ro m t h e perspecti ve ofa re aso nabl e o ffi cero n the scene. Grah am , 490 U .S. at 3 96 . Th e p ro p er a p p l ica tio n of th is tes t r equi re s a n anal ysi s o fthe f acts and circum sta nces ofthe case , “i ncl ud i ng [ 1] the seve ri ty of the c ri m e a t i ssue, [ 2] wh etherthe suspect poses an i m m edi ate t h re at to th e s afe ty of th 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. ” Id. P lain t i f f s n ee d n ot sh ow p h ys ica l inju ry in or d er to su st ain an ex c es siv e fo r c e c l aim . Su c h a ru le woul d b e i nc o ns i st en t wi ththe Supre m e Cou r t’ s r ul i ng i n C a lifo rnia v. Ho da ri D ., 4 99 U. S

. 6 21 (1991), r ec o g ni zi ng t ha ta n a r r e s tc a n b e e ff e c t ua t e d b y the s l i ght e s ta ppli c a t i o n o f ph y s i c a l f o r c e , o r b y s o me o the r s ho w o f au th or ity
. Id. at62 5. T h e is su e is s im p ly w h et h er , on c e it i s cl ear( as i t i s here) thata sei zure has occur re d, that sei zure m eet s F ourth A m endm ent s tandards. The f ac to r s i den ti fi ed i n G r a h a m al l te n d t o show that the use of the subm achi ne gun was obj ecti vel y unre aso nabl e i n the s et tingtha t Re nb arger f ac ed. F i r st, the sea rch a n d s ei zure co ncer ned the cr i m e o fal ter i ng a speci ali denti fica tio n num ber

. S ee I ND . C ODE § 9- 18- 8- 12 ( 2008 )
. Thi s i s a f arcr y fro m cr i m es that con tain the use off or ce a s a n el em ent, cr i m es i nvol vi ng poss ess i on of i lleg al w ea p on s, or d ru g c rim es , all of w h ich are as so c iate d w i th vi ol ence. S eco nd , ther e w as n ev era re aso n to su spe cttha t the r e was a ny thr ea t to the s afety o ftheN o. 08

- 2436 7

o f fi ce r s i nv o l ve d. M cCracken ha d b ee n t o the s i te the day be f or e, and the offi cer s m ade no m enti on o fdanger o r vi o l e n c e d u r i n gth e s e a r c h

. T h i r d , n o n e o fthe pla in tiffs res ist ed d et en tio n or a tt em p te d to flee . Re nbarg er att em pts to defend the r eas onabl eness o fhi s a cti ons by poi n tin g out that he di d not know the i denti ti es oftho se who mi g htb e o n t he s c e ne a nd tha th e wa s o utnu mbe r e d. Butt ak i ngthe f ac ts i n the l i g htmos t f av o r ab l e to the pla i nti f f s, as we m ust, we see a scene ofpeace able f ol ks ( i nc l udi ngthe f amous l y pa ci fi stAm i sh ) g o i ngabo ut thei r busi ness, wh i l e the pol i ce inspect v ar i ous v ehi cl es f o r i den ti fy i ngi nf o r m at i o n. Re nb ar g er ’ s su bj ec ti ve c o ncer ns do no t t ransf or m thi s s ett i ng i nto one cal l i ng f or such a h eavy - hand ed use o ffor ce. M or eov er, the f acts show that the pol i ce w er e f am i l i ar w i th the si te an d h ad no r eas on t o bel i eve thatther e would be r esi sta nce. W e h ave f ound s i m i l ar uses of f or ce unreas onabl e in othe r case s. Fo r exam ple , w e hel d that gun p oi nti ng wh en anind i vi dualpr es en ts no da ng eri s unr ea so nabl e an d vi ol ate s the Four th A m endm ent. See Jac ob s v. Ci ty of Chic ago , 21 5 F
. 3d 758, 77 3- 74 ( 7th Ci r. 20 00) ( poi nti ng a gun at a n elder l y m an’ s hea d fo r ten m i nutes e ven after re al i zi ng that he i s no t the desi re d suspect a nd wh en he pr es en ts no r es i st an ce i s “o uto fpr o po r ti o n t o a ny dan g ertha t Jacobs c o ul d po ss ibl y ha ve po se d t o the offic er s o r an y ot h er m em b er of t h e c om m u n ity ”); M cDonal d v. H as ki ns , 96 6 F
. 2d 292, 29 4- 95 ( 7th Ci r. 19 92) ( poi nti ng a gun at a ni ne- yea r- ol d c hi l d duri ng a se ar ch and threa teni ng to pu l l the tr i gge r w as “obj ecti vel y unre asonab l e”)
. I n a s l i ghtl y di ff er en t conte xt, we obse rv ed th at“ po l i ce o f fi ce r s do no t ha ve the r ight to s ho ve , pus h,8 N o. 08

- 2436

or othe rwis e ass aul t i nnocent ci ti zens w i thout any pr ovo cati on wh ats oev er . ” C lash v. Beatty, 77 F. 3d 1045 , 1048 (7th C ir. 1996). Renbarg erci tes L.A. C ounty v. R et te le, 550 U.S

. 60 9 ( 2007 ) , an d M ue hl e rv. M e na , 54 4 U.S

. 93 ( 2005 ) , as exam ple s o f c as es in which co m parabl e co nd uct was f ound to b e re as on ab le , a s t h e p olic e in th os e c as es als o p oin te d th eir gu ns a tp e o pl e du r i ngthe e xe c ut i o n o fs e a r c h wa r r a nt s. Th e f a c t s i n th o s e c a s e s , h o we v e r, r e v e a l e d a s e r i o us po te nt i alda ng ert o the po l i ce . I n Re tt el e, pol i ce knew th ato ne o fthe s us pec ts f o r who m the y wer e se ar ch i ng ow n e d a re gis te re d h an d gu n . R et te le, 550 U .S. at 6 11 . In M e na , pol i ce were exec uti ng a sea rch w ar ra nt f or deadly w eapons, and they bel i eve d that a gang m em ber w ho w as recent l y i nvol ved i n a dri ve-by shoo ti ng l i ved at th e re sid en c e t o b e s ea rc h ed

. M e na , 544 U
. S. at 95

- 96. No t hi ngo fthe s o r te xi s t e d in thi s c a s e . We c o nc l ud e th at, t ak i ngthe f acts in the l i g htmos t f av o r ab l e to the pl a i nt i f f s , a r e a s o nab l e j ur y c o ul d fi nd tha tR e nb ar ger v i o l a t e d the pl ai nt i ff s ’ r i g ht s u nd e r the F o ur th Am e nd

m ent. W e the r e f o r e p r o c e e d t o the s e c o nd s t e p o fthe qua l i fi e di m m uni tyi nqui r y a nd as kwhethe r the r i g hta t i ss ue wa s c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s he d: [ T]he ri ght the of fi ci alis al l ege d to have vi ol ate d m ust ha ve bee n “c learl y estab li sh e d ” i n a m ore pa rticularized , and hen ce m ore rel evan t, sen se: T he cont ou rs ofthe ri ght m ust be suffi ci entl y c l earthata re aso n ab le of f i c ial w ou ld u n d er st an d th at w h at h e is doi ng vi ol ate s t h at r ight. Thi s i s no t t o say thatanN o. 08

- 2436 9 of fi c i a l a c t i o n i s p r o t e c t e d b y qua l i fi e d i mm uni ty unle ss the v er y a cti on i n questi on has pre vi ousl y b een hel d unlawful, but i t i s t o say th at i n the l i ght o f pre- exi sti ng l aw the unlawful ness m ust be apparent
. Ande rs on v. Cr e ight on , 48 3 U.S

. 63 5, 64 0 (1 98 7) ( ci tat i on om i tte d). I n asce rt ai ni ng wh ethera ri ght i s cl ear l y est ablis h e d , this cou rt l ooks to con troll ing Sup rem e C ou rt and 7th Ci rcui t pr ecedent. A pl ai nti ffneed notpoi nt to i den ti ca l c as es . I nde ed, i n s o m e r ar e i ns ta nc es wher e th e con st itu ti onalvi ol ati on i s o bvi ous, a pla i nti ffneed not show a ny anal ogo us case s, “as w i despread co m pli ance w ith a c l ea r l y a ppar en t l aw may ha ve pr ev en te d the i ssue f ro m pre vi ousl y b ei ng l i ti gat ed. ” D e ni us v. D un lap , 209 F.3d 944, 951 (7th Cir. 2000). Renbarg erurg es thi s co urt to vi ew h i s behavi orat a hi gh l ev elo fg en er al i ty ; he s ee s i t as th e m er e po i nt i ngo fa g un. W e dec l i ne t o t ak e t hi s per spe ct i ve . “ Po i nt i nga gun” en co m pas se s f art o o g r ea t a va r iety ofb eh av i o r s an d si tuati ons. R en bar gerpoi nted a s ubm achi ne gun a t various peo p le w he n th ere w as no sugg estio n of d an ger, ei therfro m the al l ege d cri m e that was be i ng i nvest i gat ed o r the pe o pl e he was t ar g et ing. The F o ur thAm en dm en t prot ects ag ai nst thi s type o fbehav i orby the pol i ce. S ee Jacobs , 215 F.3d at77 3-7 4; M cD ona ld, 96 6 F
. 2d at 294- 95. The case s Renbar gerci tes ar e no t to the c ontr ar y. They actual l y r ei nfo rce the cri ti calpoi nt: wh i l e pol i ce ar e no t e nti tl ed to poi nt the i r guns atci ti zens w hen ther e is no hi nt o fdanger, theyar e a l l owed to do s o w hen ther e is r ea so n t o fea rda ng er . I n Wi l l i am s v. Ci ty of Cham paign , 52 4 F
. 3d 826 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) , pol i ce pointed10 N o. 08

- 2436

The opin ion i n Wi l l i a ms at on e p oin t ob serv es tha t it i s 1 im portant t o “dist inguis h betw een a detenti on, w hich ifunreas ona bl e vi ol at es the Fourth Am en dm en t, an d an ac c om pany i ng di s pl ay ( as di s t i nc tfrom us e) off or c e whic h m ay not

— an unr es ol ved ques t i on . . . . ” 5 24 F. 3d at 82 9. Jus tas i n Wi l l i a ms , ho w ev er, there is no nee d to co nsid er th at b r oa d issue in our cas e. W e hav e b oth an unreasonable d ete nti on and enf orcem en tby a spe cific di s pl ay off or c e wher e t he re was no hi nt o fd a n g e r t o th e p o l i c e o f fi c e r s o r o t h e r s . As th e c a s e s we cite from this circu it and oth ers ind i c a t e, the un rea son ab lene ss of this actio n, f or F o u rth A m en d m en t pu rp oses, is tho ro u g hly r e s ol ve d. thei r guns atso m eone wh o they r eas onabl y b el i eve d m i ght ha ve com m i tte d a double ro bber y m om ents bef or e. Id. at 827. M cNair in vo l ve d “ a su spe cti n a r o ug h n ei g h-

1 bor hood [ w ho] r efuse[ d] t o sto p w hen dir ec ted, ” which is a ge n u in e s ou rc e o f p olic e c on c er n . M cNair, 27 9 F
. 3d at 467 (7th Ci r. 20 02)
. Renbar geral so poi nts t o l anguage i n Wi l ki ns v. M ay, 8 7 2 F
. 2d 190 (7th C ir. 1989), to su p p ort h is p o s i tio n . In d ict a, Wi l ki ns c i te d wi tha ppr o va l the phy si ca l i nj ur y r equi r ementf o r F o ur thAm en dm en t cl ai m s fro m the Fi fth Ci rcui t ca se H inojosa v. Terrel l , 83 4 F.2 d 12 23 (5t h C ir. 19 88 ). Wi l ki ns , 8 7 2 F
. 2 d a t1 9 4
. As no te d e ar l i er, ho wev er, the physicali nj ur y r equi r ement has no t b e e n a do pt e d b y thi s c i r c ui t, a nd f o r g o od r eason. Ri gi d i nsi ste nce o n physi cali nj ury w ou ld be tant am ount to a rul e under w hi ch poi nti ng a gun i s a l w ays per se r ea so nabl e. Thi s woul d notb e co ns i st en t wi th G r a h a m or H o da ri D ., w hi ch r equi re u s to del ve furtheri nto the f acts to deter m i ne the context in w hi ch the gun poi nti ng o ccurs .N o. 08

- 2436 11 Other ci rcui ts have al so h eld that poi nti ng g uns at per s o ns who a r e c o mpl i a nt a nd pr e s e nt no da ng e r i s a c o n st itu tio n al v iola tio n . See , e . g. , M ot l ey v . Parks , 43 2 F
. 3d 1072 , 1089 (9th Cir. 2005) ( e n b anc ) (h old in g a n i nfa nt at gunpoi nt co nsti tutes exce ssi ve f or ce) ; Rob i ns on v. So lano C ounty, 278 F.3d 1 0 0 7, 1015-16 (9th Cir. 2002) ( e n b anc ) ( po i nt i nga gu n a t anuna r m ed su spe ctwho po se s no danger const i tutes exce ssi ve f or ce); H ol l and v. Har r i ngt on , 268 F. 3d 1179 , 11 92- 93 ( 10th Cir

. 20 01) ( hol ding chi l dren at g unp oi nt afterthe offi cer s had ga i ned com ple te co nt r o l o fth e s i t u a t i o n “ wa s n o tj u s t i fi e d u n d e r t he c irc u m st an c e s ”); B aker v. M onroe Tow nship , 50 F. 3d 1186 , 11 93

- 94 ( 3d Ci r . 1 99 5) ( det en ti o n a t g unpo i ntviol at ed th e F o ur t h Am e nd men t a s the r e wa s “ s i mpl y no e v i de nc e o f an y th i ngtha t sh o ul d ha ve c au se d the o ffi ce r s to us e th e ki nd o ff or ce they a re al l ege d to have used”)

. W e no te that these cas es so often invol ve chi l dren be cause they ar e m uch l ess l i kel y t o prese nt the pol i ce with a c re d ible th r ea t. I n o th erw ord s, the unr ea so nabl en es s o fthe g unpo i nt i ngi s m o r e appa r en t i n the se c as es , tho ug h po i nt i ng a g un a t a co m pl i an t a dul t i n a no n- th r ea te ni ngs i tu
ati on, as i n thi s ca se, can al so const i tute excess i ve f or ce. Con ve r se l y , c o ur ts do not fi nd c o ns ti tu ti o na l v i o l at i o ns f orgun poi nti ng wh en the re i s a reas onabl e threa t o f d an g e r o r vio len c e t o p olic e. Se e, e.g ., Apont eM at os v. Toledo D avilo , 1 3 5 F
. 3 d 1 8 2 , 19 1

- 9 2 ( 1 s tCi r . 19 9 8 ) ( i nd i v i dual at tem pt ed t o enterhouse thatwas bei ng se ar ched for w ea p on s); S h a r r a rv . F e l s i ng, 128 F.3d 81 0, 822 (3d Cir. 19 97 ) (su sp ec t w as be liev ed to h av e a h an d gu n ); Edwards v. G iles , 51 F. 3d 155, 15 6- 57 ( 8th Ci r. 19 95) ( suspect fl ed p olic e); Cours on v. M cM i l l i an , 939 F.2d 147 9, 1496 (11th Cir.12 N o. 08

- 2436 1991 ) (dru g crim e sus p ect s o u tn um bered police offi cer, w er e i ntoxi cate d, and one w as verbal l y a ggr ess i ve) ; Col l i ns v. N agle, 89 2 F
. 2d 489, 495- 97 ( 6th Ci r. 19 89) ( i nd i vi du al approached s cene i n w hi ch offi cer s were deal i ng with un coop erative su sp ects ). W e co ncl ud e that a r eas onable j ury coul d fi nd that Re nb ar g er vi o l at ed th e pl ai nt i ff s’ cl ea r l y e st ab l i sh ed r i g ht to b e free fro m ex c es siv e forc e w h en h e seiz ed an d h e ld them by poi nti ng hi s fi re ar m atthem wh en t h ere was no hint ofdanger

. A s a r esul t, Renbar geri s no t e nti tl ed to quali fi ed i m m unity. * * * For these r eas ons, we A FFIRM the di st r i ctc o ur t’ s o pi ni o n.

8- 3- 09