FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J AN 12, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 11 51 2

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 6 :1 0- cv -0 05 54 -GKS-DAB COLIN A. EDWARDS, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pla in ti ff - Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us BRYAN C. SHANLEY, Ci ty of Orla nd o P ol ic e Offi cer JUSTIN E. LOVETT, Ci ty of Orla nd o P ol ic e Offi cer, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt s - Ap pe ll ees .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J an ua ry 12 , 20 12 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, MARTIN, andHILL, Circu itJu dg es . MARTIN, Ci rcu itJu dg e: Thi s ap pe al co ns id ers whet he r cl earl y est ab li sh edfed eral law p ro hi bi tspo li ce o ffi cers fro m all owi ng a po li ce d og to co nduc t a f iv e- t o s ev en -m inut e at ta ck ag ai ns t a p ers on who ran fro m hi s ca r aft er a t raff

ic st op , wher e h e is lying face do wn wi th hi s h an ds expo se d, n o l on ge r res is ti ng arre st , andrep eat ed ly pl ead in g wi th th e o ffi cers to cal l o ff the do g b ecau se he su rren de rs . W e co nc lu de th atcle arl y

est ab li sh edlaw d oe s n otpe rm itth is lev el of f or ce. As ares ul t, we
rev ers e th e d eci si on by the Dis tri ctCo urt g ran ti ng qu al ifi edimm un it y to th e of fic ers , andrem an d fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs . I.

“ W e rev ie w de n ov o adi st ric t co urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t b as edon qu al ifi edimm

un it y an d app ly the same leg al st an da rd s as th e d is tri ctco urt.” Drap er v . Rey

no ld s, 3 69 F.3d12 70 , 12 74 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). “ W e res ol ve all is su es of m at eri al factinfav or

of t he pl ai nt iff

, andth ende te rm in e th e le ga l que st io n o f whe th er the de fen da ntis en ti tl edto qu al ifi edimm un it y un de r th atve rs io n o f th e fact s.” B as hi r v. R oc kd al e Cn ty., 44 5 F .3d13 23 , 13 27 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (quo ta ti on
m ark s o m it te d) . “ W e rec og ni ze t ha t fa ct s, as acce pt edat t he su m m ary jud gm en t st ag e o f th e p ro ceed in gs , m ay no t b e th e actua l fa ct s o f th e cas e . . .” Oliv er v . Fi or in i, 5 86 F.3d89 8, 9 01 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d)
. Non ethe le ss “ we ap pr oa ch th e fac ts fro m th e p la in ti ff’s p ers pe ct iv e b ecau se th e is su es ap pe al edhe re co nc ern no t wh ic h fa ct s t he pa rti es m ig htbe ab le to pro ve , 2bu t, ra th er, wh ethe r orno t ce rta in gi ve n fa ct s s ho weda vi ol at io n o f cl earl y

es tabl is he d l aw.” Cre ns ha w v. Lis te r, 55 6 F .3d12 83 , 12 89 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). 1 Rea di ng th e rec or d i n t hi s l ig ht , on th e ev en in g o f Decem be r 17 , 20 08 , Edwar ds dro ve hi s wi fe’s carde sp it e h av in g asu sp en de d l ic en se . Whi le dri vi ng , he ap pr oa ch eda st op si gn an d n ot ic eda po li ce ca r si tt in g i n a n a djac en t l ot . Edwar ds fai le d t o p ro pe rly sto p a t t he st op si gn , andth enob se rv edth e p ol ic e car dr iv in g b eh in d h im

with i ts si ren s an d l ig ht s en ga ge d. Exp ect in g t o b e p as se d, Edwar ds m ov edhi s ca r to th e ri gh t, b utth e p ol ic e car rem ai ne d b eh in d h im
. Edwar ds th endro ve “ a li tt le bi t d own ” th e ro adan d m ad e a ri gh t turn i nt o ali br ary pa rk in g l ot , wher e th e p ol ic e carfol lo wed
. Afte r st op pi ng hi s ca r, Edwar ds go t o utan d ra n. Offi cer Lo ve tt , th e driv er of th e p ol ic e car , cha se d Edward s o n fo ot . Edward s fi rs t ra n t owa rdth e st reet , bu t Offi cer Lo ve ttin te rrupt ed , cau si ng Edward s t o abo utface an d ru n t owa rd s a
ne arb y fen ce. Edwa rd s s cal edth e fen ce, wh ic h s ep arat edth e p ark in g l otfro m a
woo de d a rea, b utha d d iff ic ul ty becau se of t he th ic kn es s o f th e su rro un di ng bru sh
. He m ad e it“ no t ev enha lf am il e in to th e b us h,” an d t he n l ai d d own on hi s At oral a rgument the appe llees’ c ounsel conc eded that material issues of f act pe rvade 1 the re cord, but urg ed us to reje ct appe llant’s acc ount as unlikely based upon othe r evide nce in the rec ord. As this is clear ly

the role of

a jury , it would be inappropriate for us to make such deter minations at this t ime. Our job is to determine only whether the evidenc e can be re ad to support a denia l of qualified immunity , not to predict how the jury will weig h that same evidenc e. 3st om ach in anop enarea .

Offi cer Lo ve ttdi d n otim m ed ia te ly pur su e Edwa rd s i nt o t he woo ds , and in st eadcal le d fo r ba ckup . Office r Sh an le y res po nd edto th is cal l, an d s oo n th erea fte r cam e to th e sc en e wit h h is K-9 p art ne r, Ro sc o. Th e o ffi cers th enbo th
an no un cedth ei r pr es en ce an d warne d t ha t t he y were g oi ng to us e th e d og if Edwar ds di d n otsu rren de r. Heari ng no res po ns e, an d a fte r a s eco ndwarn in g, t he of fic ers en te redth e woo de d a rea. Th e d og lea d t he off ic ers to Edward s, wh o
rem ai ne d l y in g o n h is st om ach wit h h is hand s ex po se d. Offi cer S hanl ey saw Edwar ds lying on hi s s to m ach an d a ga in an no un cedth e p res en ce o f th e K-9 un it
. Alt ho ug h h e sa w th ei r fl as hl ig ht s, Edward s d idno t h ear o r res po ndto Offic er Sh an le y ’s ann ou nc em en ts . As t he off

ic ers go t cl os er, Edward s h eardth em co m m an d h im

to sh ow h is ha nd s. Be cau se hi s h an ds were al read y vi si bl e, Edwar ds m ad e n o m ov em en t. In st ead , he s ho ut ed : “ [Y]ou g otm e. I on ly ran b ecau se of m y li cen se .” Yet as Edwar ds fin is he d m ak in g tha t s ta te m en t, t he do g, wh ic h h adbe enrel eas edby Offi cer S ha nl ey , beg anbi ti ng Edward s’s l eg . As th e d og bi t h im , Edward s sh ou te d “ I’m

no t re si st in g” an d b eg ge d t he off ic ers to cal l o ff the do g. Acco rd in g t o Edward s, t he do g re pe at ed ly bithi s l eg forso m ewh ere

4be twee n fi ve an d s ev enm in ut es . Edward s d idno t re si st . The o ffi cers di d n ot 2 in st ru cthi m

to tak e an y

furth er ac ti on s d em on st rat in g c om pl ia nc e wit h the ir
co m m an ds . Yet the y

ne it he r ha nd cu ffedno r arre st edEdward s, an d i ns te adst oo d
ov er h im whi le th e d og m ai nt ai ne d i ts bi te . Even tu al ly, on e o f th e o ffi cers pl aced hi s kne e in to Edward s’s b ack , andsec ur edha nd cu ffs on to bo th of Ed ward s’s ha nd s. On ce h an dc uf

fed , Offic er Sh an le y

ga ve th e d og a ve rb al co m m an d t o rel eas e th e b it e. Edwar ds su ffer edser io us in juri es res ul ti ng fro m

th e d og att ack . Agai n,
acco rd in g t o Edward s, upo n s eei ng hi s l eg fol lo win g the att ack , on e o f th e o ffi cers de sc rib edhi s l eg as l oo ki ng li ke fil etm ig no n, an d jo ke d tha t i s wh y th e p ol ic e d o
no t fe edth ei r do gs . Edward s was th entra ns po rte d v iaam bu la nc e to th e h os pi ta l. The tre at in g p hysic ia n d ia gn os edhi m wit h “ si gn ifi can t d am ag e to [hi s l eg ’s]
m us cl es an d t en do ns ” res ul ti ng fro m a “ ve ry , very

co m pl ex in jury” tha t i nc lu de d th e lo ss of “ a la rg e are a, larg e chun ks of f ul l-t hi ckne ss ti ss ue alo ng . . . [h is ] le g.”

Ag ain, at summary

judgme nt we must construe the rec ord in the lig ht most favorable to 2 the non-movingparty , Edwar ds. This standard lea ves no room to dispute the length of the dog attack, be cause the offic ers sa y almost nothing about the attack’s dur ation. For example, in his deposition, Office r Shanley states only

that his dog “ maintained hold on Colin Edwards until he was ha ndcuff ed at whic h point [ he] instructed [the dog] to relea se his bite, which he did.” Simi larly , Offic er L ovett’s deposition does not addre ss the duration of the attack. Thus, we conduct our

analy sis assuming the length of the attac k to be five to seve n minutes. But in so doing, w e ar e mindful that the trial jury will not be simi larly

constraine d, and will be fr ee to reje ct Edwa

rds’s ac count as incr edible if it so deter mines. 5He rece iv ed“ur ge ntsu rg ery” andwas re qu ire d t o re m ai n i n t he ho sp it al for si x da y s, an d upo n re le as e u nd erwen t ex te ns iv e fo ll ow- up care . Edwar ds was c ha rg edwit h fl eei ng or a tt em pt in g t o e lu de a la w enf

or cem en t of fic er, driv in g wi th a su sp en de d l ic en se , res is ti ng anoff ic er wi th ou t v io le nc e, an d st rik in g apo li ce d og . Edward s p le ad edno co nt es t t o the fel on y ch arg e o f fl eei ng
oratt em pt in g t o e lu de a law enf

or cem en t o ffi cer, an d a ll rem ai ni ng ch arg es were di sm is se d. InApri l 2 01 0, Edward s b ro ug htth is act io n a ga in stOffic ers Sh an le y an d Lov ett s eek in g d am ag es un de r 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3. Sp eci fic al ly, Edwar ds all eg ed th atOffic er Sh an le y ’s us e o f a p ol ic e d og co ns ti tu te d e xc es si ve for ce, an d fu rth er th atOffic er Lo ve ttfai le d t o i nt erv en e an d s to p t he do g a tt ack , bo th in vi ol at io n o f th e Fo urth Am en dm en t. The di st ric t co urt g ran te d s umm ary jud gm en t fo r th e of fic ers ba se d o n qua li fie d i m m un it y . This ap pe al fol lo wed
. II. W e b eg in wit h t he Dis tri ctCo urt’s d et erm in at io n t ha t qua li fie d i m m un it y sh ie ld s Off

ic er Sh an le y

fro m li ab il it y forhi s u se of t he do g t o trackan d s ub du e Edwar ds . Edward s ad va nc es two th eo rie s fo r rel ie f. Fir st , he c on te nd s t ha t Offi cer S ha nl ey

vi ol at edth e Fo urth Am en dm en t t hr ou gh th e m ere u se of apo li ce do g. Se co nd , Edward s ar gu es th atev enif s om e in it ia l u se was c on st itut io na l,
6Offi cer S ha nl ey co m m it te d adi st in ctco ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n wh enhe all owe d t he do g t o b it e Edwa rd s fo r fi ve to sev enm in ut es whi le Edward s p le ad edto su rren de r. Inres po ns e, Offi cer S ha nl ey arg ue s t ha t qua li fie d i m

m un it y sh ie ld s h im

fro m li ab il it y for eit he r act . W e an al y ze Edward s’s cl ai m s u nd er qua li fie d i m m un it y ’s fam il ia r two -s te p
an al y si s. “ Qua li fie d i m

m un it y sh ie ld s g ov ern m en t o ffi ci al s fr om li ab il it y forciv il da m ag es forto rts co m

m it te d wh il e p erfo rm in g d is cret io na ry du ti es un le ss th ei r
co nduc t v io la te s a c le arl y est ab li sh edst atut ory

or c on st itut io na l ri gh t.” Had le y v. Gut ie rrez , 52 6 F .3d13 24 , 13 29 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). It i s u nd is pu te d t ha t Offi cers Sh an le y an d Lo ve ttwere ac ti ng wit hi n the ir d is cret io na ry au th or it y whi le tra ck in g
an d a rres ti ng Edward s.

“ Onc e d is cret io nary

au th or it y is est ab li sh ed , th e b ur de n the n s hi fts to th e pl ai nt iff to sh ow t ha t qua li fie d i m m un it y sh ou ldno t ap pl y .” Lewis v. Ci ty of W es t Pal m Beac h, 5 61 F.3d12 88 , 12 91 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). In S au ci er v . Katz, t he Supr em e Co urt s etforth a two -s te p p ro ces s fo r res ol vi ng qu al ifi edimm un it y cl ai m s. Sau ci er v . Katz, 5 33 U.S. 19 4, 2 01 , 12 1 S . Ct. 2 15 1, 2 15 6 (2 00 1) . “ The fir stst ep is to “ de te rm in e[ ] whethe r th e [d efen da nt ’s] co nduc t am ou nt edto a
co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n.” Lewis , 56 1 F .3dat 1 29 1. Th e se co ndst ep is to de te rm in e “ whe th er t he rig htvi ol at edwas ‘cle arl y est ab li sh ed ’ atth e ti m e o f th e
7vi ol at io n.” Id. (quo ti ng Sau ci er, 5 33 U.S. at 2 01 , 12 1 S . Ct. at21 56 ). Thi s t wost ep an al y si s i s n otm an da to ry , bu t i s t he “ of te n app ro pr ia te ” m an ne r th ro ug h whi chto an al y ze qua li fie d i m m un it y cla im s. Pea rs on v. Ca ll ah an , --- U.S. ---, --- , 12 9 S . Ct. 8 08 , 81 8 (2 00 9)
. Und er b ot h t he or ie s o f li ab il it y , Edward s cl ai m s t ha t Offi cer S ha nl ey vi ol at edth e Co ns ti tu ti on ’s pro hi bi ti on on ex ces si ve po li ce fo rce. We ana lyze su ch cl ai m s “ un de r th e Fo urth Am en dm en t’s o bjec ti ve reas on ab le ne ss st an da rd ,” Bro ss eauv. Hau ge n, 5 43 U.S. 19 4, 1 97 , 12 5 S . Ct. 5 96 , 59 8 (2 00 4) , ask in g

“ whe th er t he off

ic er’s co nduc t i s o bjec ti ve ly reaso nabl e in li gh t o f th e fac ts
co nf ro nt in g t he off

ic er.” Cr en sh aw, 55 6 F .3dat 1 29 0 (q uo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d)
. Und er thi s fr am ewo rk , “ [t]he ‘ reas on ab le ne ss ’ of a pa rti cu la r us e o f fo rce m us t b e jud ge d fr om

th e p ers pe ct iv e o f a rea so nabl e o ffi cer o n t he sce ne , rathe r th anwit h th e 2 0/ 20 vi si on of h in ds ig ht .” Grah am v. Co nn or , 49 0 U.S. 3 86 , 39 6, 1 09 S. Ct. 18 65 , 18 72 (19 89 ); s ee al so Garczyns ki v. Br ad sh aw, 57 3 F .3d11 58 , 11 66 (11 th Ci r. 20 09 ). As a re su lt , “ [t]he tes t o f rea so nabl en es s u nd er the Fo urth Am en dm en t i s n ot cap ab le of p reci se de fin it io n o r m ech an ic al ap pl ic at io n.” Bel l v . W ol fis h, 4 41 U.S. 52 0, 5 59 , 99 S. Ct. 1 86 1, 1 88 4 (1 97 9) . Ins te ad , “ it s p ro pe r ap pl ic at io n requi res care fu l at te nt io n t o t he fact s an d c irc um st an ces of e ach pa rti cu la r cas e,”
8Grah am , 49 0 U.S. at39 6, 1 09 S. Ct. at18 72 , whi ch we ach ie ve by exam in in g t he

so -cal le d “ Grah am

fact or s,” i .e.: “ (1 ) th e se ve rit y of the cri m e atis su e; (2) whet he r th e su sp ectpo se s animm ed ia te th reatto th e sa fet y of t he off

ic ers or o th ers ; an d (3 ) whe th er t he su sp ectis act iv el y res is ti ng arre stor a tt em

pt in g t o e va de arre stby fli gh t.” Fi ls v. Ci ty of Ave ntur a, 64 7 F .3d12 72 , 12 88 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ) (quo ta ti on
m ark s o m it te d)
. App lying th es e fac to rs to th e fac ts as c on st ru edat s umm ary jud gm en t, we ho ldth atOffic er Sh an le y ’s dec is io n t o u se a do g t o h el p t rackan d i ni ti al ly sub du e th e fl eei ng Edward s was co ns ti tu ti on al , bu t fu rth er co nc lu de th atOffic er Sh an le y
us edun co ns ti tu ti on al ly exces si ve for ce wh enhe pe rm it te d h is do g t o a tt ack Edwar ds forfiv e to sev enm in ut es . In s o h ol di ng , we ob se rv e th at“ fro m th e 3 pe rs pe ct iv e o f a rea so nabl e o ffi cer,” when Offic er Sh an le y arri ve d, an un id en ti fie d in di vi du al ha d fl edarre staft er co m m it ti ng a no n- se rio us tra ffi c o ffen se . W it ho ut
m or e in fo rm at io n, atth is jun ctur e a rea so nabl e o ffi cer wo ul d n otkn ow t he ex te nt of th e d an ge r po se d b y

th atfle ei ng in di vi du al . Mor eo ve r, th atth e in di vi du al ha d fle d a t n ig htin to ne arb y

woo ds crea te d fu rth er re as on to be ap pr eh en si ve .

Her e ag ain, we e x plicitly rec og nize that a jury

is free to make its own fac t determination 3 about the length of the dogattack. At this st ag e of the proce edingwe a ccept the story as told by Mr. Edwa rds, but in so doing we are mindful that a jury will have the oppor

tunity to test the evidenc e pre sented by

both sides in our time-honored a dversa rial tradition. 9The Co ns ti tu ti on to le rat es so m e u se s o f a d og un de r th es e co nd it io ns . The

Grah am fact or s re co gn iz e th atcert ai n c irc um st an ces in crea se th e rea so nabl en es s of cert ai n u se s o f fo rce. Here , th e fo rce n eces sa ril y cau se d b y

us in g ado g t o t rack a fl eei ng su sp ectis reas on ab ly tail or edto th e ri skth ata fl eei ng su sp ectpre se nt s. Fu rth erm or e, be cau se th e ev id en ce s ho ws t ha t Edward s h adno t yet tri edto
su rren de r whe n Off

ic er Sh an le y

all owe d h is do g t o fi rs t b it e Edwa rd s’s l eg , th is is th e so rt o f “ sp li t-s eco nd ” d et erm in at io n m ad e b y anoff ic er o n the sce ne th at Grah am co un se ls ag ai ns t s eco ndgu es si ng . See Grah am , 49 0 U.S. at39 6– 97 , 10 9 S. Ct . at 1 87 2. In acco rdwit h t ha t g ui danc e, we de fer t o Off ic er Sh an le y ’s jud gm en t t ha t i t was ap pr op ria te to em pl oy ext rao rd in ary bu t n on -d ead ly force in th is in st an ce. Tha t Offi cer S hanl ey

reas on ab ly deci de d t o u se th e d og in th e fi rs t i ns ta nc e do es no t m ean , ho wev er, tha t t he us e o f th e d og was re as on ab le forth e dur at io n o f th e at ta ck . Rath er, the Grah am fact or s co m

pe l t he co nc lu si onth atOffic er Sh an le y
us edun reas on ab le for ce wh enhe subjec te d Edward s t o fi ve to sev enm in ut es of do g a tt ack , whi le Edward s was pl ead in g t o s urren de r an d Off ic er Sh an le y

was i n a po si ti onto im

m ed ia te ly effectEdward s’s arres t. Cri ti cal to th is de te rm in at io n i s th e fac t t ha t, i n s ub

jecti ng Edward s t o t he do g a tt ack , Offic er Sh an le y in cr ea se d th e fo rce app li edat the same tim e th e th reatpre se nt edby E dwa rd s de cr ea se d . To
10be su re, the ser io us ne ss of Ed ward s’s fl eei ng Offic er Lo ve ttha d n otch an ge d, an d

th us un de r th e fi rs t Gra ha m fact orwe acce ptth atOffic er Sh an le y ha d s om e rea so n to ap pr oa ch Edward s wi th co nc ern s fo r hi s o wn s afet y . Butin so far a s fl eei ng fro m th e p ol ic e rai se s d oubtab ou t t he da ng er an in di vi du al po se s, Edward s m it ig at ed th atdo ub t b y

layin g p ro ne wit h h is ha nd s ex po se d a ndbe gg in g t o s urren de r. As a
res ul t, the sec on d a ndth irdGrah am fact or s wei gh in fav orof Ed ward s’s ar gu m en t th atex tra or di na ry

for ce was no t n eces sa ry

or app ro pr ia te forth e en ti re dur at io n o f th e d og att ack
. In de ed , eva lu at in g Off

ic er Sh an le y ’s con du ctat t he ti m e o f th e p ro lo ng ed at ta ck m ak es it s u nr eas on ab le ne ss pl ai n. Be cau se Edward s was be gg in g t o
su rren de r, an d b ecau se Offic er Sh an le y co ul d s afel y

gi ve effe ctto th atsu rren de r, th e fu rth er i nf

li ct io n o f pa in was g ratui to us an d s ad is ti c. Thi s t he Co ns ti tu ti on do es no t t ol erat e. See Had le y , 52 6 F .3dat 1 33 0 (“ Ourcas es ho ldth atgra tu it ou s
us e o f fo rce wh ena cri m in al su sp ectis no t re si st in g a rres t co ns ti tu te s ex ces si ve fo rce.” ). Becaus e we m

us t ac cep t t he se all eg at io ns to be tru e inth is pro cedur al 4 po stur e, Edwar ds ha s i de nt ifi eda co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n a tt rib ut ab le to Offic er Sh an le y .
Importantly , g iven the length of time that the attac k is alleg ed to have continued, this is 4 a materially

distinct viol ation from the “ split second” dec ision to use a dogto subdue and immediately

arr est a fle eingsuspect. See Graha m, 490 U.S. at 397, 109 S. C t. at 1872. 11Hav in g re ach edth is co nc lu si on , we m us t n ex t d et erm in e whe th er i t was cl earl y est ab li sh edat t he ti m e o f Offi cer S ha nl ey ’s enc ou nt er wi th Edward s t ha t
or de rin g afiv e- t o s ev en -m in ut e d og att ackag ai ns t a c om pl ia ntsu sp ectwho is pl ead in g t o s urren de r vi ol at es th e Fo urth Am en dm en t. As we rece nt ly exp la in ed ,

“ [o ]ur Ci rcu itus es two m etho ds to de te rm in e whe th er a re as on ab le off ic er wo ul d kn ow t ha t h is co nduc t i s u nc on st itut io na l.” Fi ls , 64 7 F .3dat 1 29 1 (1 1t h C ir. 20 11 ). Spe ci fic al ly:

The fir st m etho d lo ok s at the rel ev an t case law at th e ti m e of th e vi ol at io n; th e rig ht is cl earl y es tabl is he d if a co nc ret e factua l co nt ex t [ex is ts ] so as t o m ak e itob vi ou s t o areas on ab le go ve rn m en t ac to r th at hi s act io ns vi ol at e fed eral la w. Th i s m etho d do es no t requi re th at th e cas e la w be m at eri al ly si m il ar to th e of fic er’s co nduc t; of

fic ia ls can st il l be on no ti ce t h a t t he ir co nduc t vi ol at es es tabl is he d law ev en in no ve l factua l ci rcu m st an c e s . Bu t, whe re th e la w is st at ed in br oa d pr op os i t i o n s, a ve ry hi gh de gr ee of pr io r factua l pa rti cu la rit y m ay be ne ces sa ry . The s e c o n d m etho d lo ok s no t at cas e la w, bu t at th e of fic er’s co nduc t, an d in qu ire s whe th er th at co nduc t li es so ob vi ou sl y at th e ve ry co re of wha t th e Fo urth Am en dm en t pr oh ib it s th at th e un la wfu ln es s of th e co nduc t was read il y ap pa ren t to [th e of fic er], no twi th st an d i n g th e la ck of fact -s pe ci fic cas e la w. Thi s m etho d—te rm ed ob vi ou s cl ari ty—is a n arro w ex cep ti on to th e no rm al ru le th at on ly cas e la w an d sp e c i f i c factua l scen ari os can cl earl y es tabl is h a vi ol at io n[ .] Co nc ret e fact s are ge ne ral ly ne ces sa ry to pr ov id e an of fic er wit h no ti ce of th e ha zy bo rd er be twee n ex ces si ve an d acce pt ab le fo rce. Bu t, whe re th e of fic er’s co nduc t is so ou tra ge ou s th at it cl earl y go es so far be y on d th es e bo rd ers , qu al ifi ed imm

un it y wil l no t pr ot ect hi m ev en in th e ab se nc e of cas e la w. Id . at (q uo ta ti on m ark s an d c it at io ns om it te d)
. 12The pa rti es cal l o uratt en ti on to two publ is he d c as es ap pl y in g Gra ha m to in st an ces of p ol ic e u se of d og s, an d we a gr ee the se cas es be ar h eav il y on ou r
an al y si s i n t hi s ca se . Firs t, i n C ren sh aw, we he ldth atitwas o bjec ti ve ly
reas on ab le for

anoff ic er t o b rie fly us e th e fo rce e xe rte d b y a po li ce d og to subdue
an d d et ai n a n a rm edsu sp ectun ti l h e co ul d b e h an dc uf fed . 55 6 F .3dat 1 29 1– 93
. The su sp ectin th atcas e, Cren sh aw, was t ho ug htto ha ve co m m it te d a t l eas t o ne , an d p os si bl y

two , arm edrob be rie s, o n t he same nig htth athe was s po tt edby po li ce. Id . at 1 29 1. Up on be in g p ur su edby the po li ce, atni gh t, Cr en sh aw act iv el y fle d— fir stinhi s v eh ic le an d t he n, af te r cra sh in g h is ve hi cl e in to a m ark edpa tro l car, b y foo t. Id . He ent ereda de ns el y woo de d area, l ai d o n t he gro un d, an d sh ou te d o uthi s l oc at io n i n a n a tt em ptto su rren de r. Id. Aft er d oi ng so , th e d og lo cat edCren sh aw an d b ithi m th irt y on e ti m es . Id. With in th ree t o fi ve sec on ds aft er re le as in g t he do g, t he off ic ers su rro un de d C ren sh aw an d o rd eredhi m to gi ve up hi s h an ds . Id. at12 86 . Becau se Cren sh aw “ di d n otimm ed ia te ly giv e up h is ha nd s,” the off

ic er g rab be d C ren sh aw’s rig htha nd . Id. at12 86 –8 7. Th e o ffi cer th enha nd cu ffedCren sh aw’s lef t arm an d c al le d o ff the do g. Id
. W e ex pl ai ne d tha t al l t hr ee Grah am fact or s wei gh edag ai ns t Cr en sh aw. Fi rs t, “ Cren sh aw was su sp ect edof h av in g c omm it te d o ne , andpe rh ap s t wo, arm ed
ro bb eri es , whi ch can be ch arac te riz edas aser io us cri m e.” Id . at 1 29 2. Se co nd , 13“ [h ]e acti ve ly fledfro m th e p ol ic e—f

irs t i n h is ve hi cl e, an d t he n b y foo t, af te r
cras hi ng hi s v eh ic le in to a m ark edpa tro l ca r—a ndatt em pt edto hi de in a de ns el y
woo de d a rea.” Id. Th ird , “be cau se Cren sh aw was su sp ect edof a rm edrob be ry an d
was a fu gi ti ve fro m

th e p ol ic e, [the po li ce] hadev ery reas onto be li ev e th at Cren sh aw was arm edan d d an ge ro us .” Id .; s ee al so Grah am , 49 0 U.S. at39 7, 1 09 S. Ct . at 1 87 2. Th us , altho ug h t he pl ai nt iff att em pt edto su rren de r, we de te rm in ed th at“ itwas o bjec ti ve ly reaso nabl e fo r [the off ic er] to qu es ti on[Cre ns ha w’ s] si nc eri ty . . . andus e th e can in e to ap pr eh en d h im ” in li gh t o f hi s p as t co nduc t. Cren sh aw, 55 6 F .3dat 1 29 3. Cren sh aw is th us so m ewh atonpo in t t o t he fir stof Edward s’s cl ai m s—th at he is en ti tl edto da m ag es st em m in g fr om

Offic er Sh an le y ’s dec is io n t o u se a po li ce do g i n t he fir stin st an ce. In de ed , gi ve n t he factua l s im il ari ti es , Cren sh aw atlea st pr ecl ud es an y

co nc lu si on th atcle arl y

est ab li sh edlaw p ro hi bi ts th e p ol ic e fro m
us in g ado g t o t rackan d s ub du e a fl eei ng su sp ect . Butth is is th e ex te ntof Cren sh aw’s ap pl ic ab il it y to Edward s’s ca se . On t he ot he r ha nd , we agr ee wi th Edward s t ha t o ur de ci si on in Pri es te r v. Ci ty of Ri vi earaBeac h, 2 08 F.3d91 9 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 0) , is on all fou rs wit h t he
co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n a ll eg edin th is cas e. InPri es te r, we he ldth atitwas ob jecti ve ly unr eas on ab le forpo li ce o ffi cers to all ow a d og to bi te an d h ol d a
14su sp ectfortwo m in ut es , whi ch we de sc rib edas “ anete rn it y ,” whe re t ha t s us pe ct

was co m pl iantwit h t he off

ic ers ’ or de rs an d n otres is ti ng arre st . Id. at92 3– 24 , 27
. Sp eci fic al ly, we ap pl ie d t he Grah am fact or s an d c on cl ud edth ateach weig he d i n Pri es te r’s fav orbe cau se , he ( 1) was s us pe ct edof ano n- se rio us off en se —s te al in g $2 0 wo rth of s na ck s fr om a pr o s ho p; (2) was c om

pl ia ntwit h t he off

ic ers an d l ay do wn o n t he gro un d wh enord eredto , andth us “ di d n otpo se a th reatof b od il y ha rm to th e o ffi cers ”; an d (3 ) “ was no t at te m pt in g t o fl ee o r to res is t arres t.” Id . at 92 7. We con cl ud edth atun de r th es e fac ts , “ [n ]o reas on ab le po li ce o ffi cer c ou ld be li ev e th atth is for ce was pe rm is si bl e g iv enth es e st rai gh tfo rwardcir cu m st an ces .” Id
. The same is t ru e h ere. Qu it e si m pl y , aft er we h el d i n P rie st er t ha t i t was
un co ns ti tu ti on al to subjec t a c om pl ia ntsu sp ectto th e “ et ern it y ” o f two m in ut es of do g a tt ack , see 20 8 F .3dat 9 24 , itis pl ai n t ha t i t i s al so un co ns ti tu ti on al to subjec t a si m il arl y

co m pl ia ntsu sp ectto a lo ng er at ta ckof f iv e to sev enm in ut es , esp eci al ly whe re tha t s us pe ctis pl ead in g fo r su rren de r. Ind eed , th is cas e is in m an y reg ard s
eas ie r th anPri es te r, be cau se whi le th e sa m e fac to rs weig h a ga in stth e n eedfor
ex tra or di na ry

for ce— “ [t]he re was no co nf us io n. Pl ai nt iff

di d n otpo se a th reatof bo di ly harm

to th e o ffi cers or t o a nyon e el se . And , he was no t at te m pt in g t o fl ee
orto res is t arres t.” Pr ie st er, 2 08 F.3dat 9 27 —Offi cer S hanl ey us edgre at er fo rce 15th andi d t he off ic ers arre st in g P rie st er. The reco rdth us pre se nt s “ a co nc ret e factua l co nt ex t s o a s t o m ak e itob vi ou s t o areas on ab le go ve rn m en t ac to r th athi s act io ns vi ol at e fed eral law.” Had le y , 52 6 F .3dat 1 33 3 (q uo ta ti onm ark s o m it te d) ;
acco rdFil s, 6 47 F.3dat 1 29 1. As a res ul t, Offi cer S hanl ey can no t cl ai m

qu al ifi ed imm un it y on th e g ro un ds th athe di d n otkn ow h e was vi ol at in g Edward s’s
co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s. 5 Insu m , we ho ldth atcle arl y est ab li sh edfed eral law p ro hi bi ts th e p ol ic e fro m subjec ti ng a co m

pl ia ntsubjec t wh o i s at te m pt in g t o s urren de r to a le ng th y do g a tt ack . As a res ul t, we re ve rs e th e g ran t o f qu al ifi edimm un it y to Offic er Sh an le y . III. Edwar ds als o c on te nd s t ha t Offi cer Lo ve ttvi ol at edhi s ri gh t t o b e fre e fro m
ex ces si ve for ce b y

fai li ng to in te rv en e an d s to p t he do g a tt ack
. W e h av e

This conclusion is buttressed by the obviously

crue l and unre asonable nature of the 5 alleg ed length of the dogattack. A s in Fils, even if O ffice r Shanley doubted the fa ctual simil arities of the two case s, there w as nothing“hazy” about whe ther the f orce he used w as acc eptable. F ils, 647 F.3d at 1291 (quotations marks omitted). Indeed, a simple comparison betwee n the alleg ed for ce use d and the objec tive threat posed by Edwar ds rende rs this an “e asy” case about conduc t so obviously unconstitutional that no prior casewould be nee ded to make the holding e x plicit. See United States v. L anier , 520 U.S. 259, 271, 117 S. C t. 1219, 1227–28 (1997) ( “The easie st cases don' t even a rise. The re ha s never

been . . . a

section 1983 ca se acc using w elfa

re of ficials of se lling foster

children into slaver

y ; it does not follow that if such a case arose , the offic ials would be immune from damag es [or criminal] li ability .” (quotation marks omitted)). 16reco gn iz edth at“ anoff ic er ca n b e li ab le for

fai li ng to in te rv en e whe n a no th er of fic er u se s ex ces si ve for ce.” Pr ie st er, 2 08 F.3dat 9 24 . There is no di sp ut e th at Offi cer Lo ve ttwas p res en t fo r th e en ti re at ta ck , andtak in g Edward s’s ac co un t as tru e, he m ad e n o e ffo rt t o i nt erv en e an d s to p t he on go in g c on st itut io na l v io la ti on . As s uc h, Offi cer Lo ve ttis no m or e en ti tl edto qu al ifi edimm un it y th anOffic er Sh an le y . See Pri es te r, 20 8 F .3dat 9 27 –2 8. IV. Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we re ve rs e th e d is tri ctco urt’s jud gm en t g ran ti ng
su m m ary jud gm en t t o Off

ic ers Sh an le y

an d Lo ve tt , andrem an d fo r fu rth er pr oc eed in gs . REVERSED AND REMANDED.

17