## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H

C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _
No.1 1- 21 08

__ __ __ __ __ _
Ju st in Sh ek le to n, *

* Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, *

* App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s

v. * Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e

* Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa

. Ry an Eich en be rg er, In di vi du al ly and * in hi s Off ic ia l Ca pa ci ty as a Law * Enfo rcem en t Offi cer f

or Ch ic ka sa w * Co un ty Sheri ff’s Dep art m en t, *

* Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t *

* Ch ic ka sa w Cou nt y , Iowa
, *

Defen da nt

. *

__ __ __ __ __ _
Su bm it te d: Jan ua ry

11 , 20 12 Fil ed : M ay

3, 2 01 2

__ __ __ __ __ _
Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , MELLOY and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ _ SHEPHERD, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

Ju st in Sh ek le to n br ou gh t an act io n pu rs ua nt to 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 ag ai ns t Ry an Eich en be rg er, in di vi du al ly an d in hi s cap aci ty as a Ch ic ka sa w Co un ty, Io wa Sh eri ff’s Dep art m en t D e p u ty al le gi ng Dep ut y Eich en be rg er vi ol at ed Sh ek le to n’s Fo ur th
Am en dm en t ri ght to be free fro m ex ces si ve fo rce by un ne ces sa ril y ta se rin g Sh ek le to n.Dep ut y Eich en be rg er ap pe al s t he di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of h is m ot io n fo r su m m ary 1 jud gm en t as to th e se ct io n 19 83 in di vi du al cap aci ty cl ai m , as se rti ng th at Sh ek le to n’s
cl ai m is ba rred by the do ct rin e o f qu al ifi ed im m un it y

. W e aff

irm. 2

I.

At ap pr ox im at el y 11: 30 p. m

. on Se pte m be r 6, 20 08
, Sh ek le to n le ft McS ha nn y ’s
Bar in New Ham

pt on , Io wa. Upo n le av in g th e ba r, Sh ek le to n ob se rv ed Jo y an d
Ran dy Bru m

m on d, Jo hn Sch oe nf

el d, an d Pam el a Rau sc h sm ok in g ci ga ret te s ou ts id e th e ba r. Sh ek le to n en ga ge d Rau sc h, who was a ba rte nd er at McS ha nn y ’s, in a sh or t

co nv ers at io n. Si m

ul ta ne ou sl y , Depu ty Eich en be rg er d ro ve pa st McSh an ny’ s wh il e

on pa tro l wit h hi s win do w ro ll ed do wn an d ob se rv ed Sh ek le to n an d Ra u s c h

co nv ers in g. Alt ho u gh Dep ut y Eich en be rg er be li ev ed Sh ek le to n an d Rau sc h were
arg ui ng an d th at th ei r vo ic es were lo ud
, Sh ek le to n, Sch oe nf el d, an d bo th Bru m

m on ds

st at ed un de r oa th th at th e co nv ers at io n be twee n Sh ek le to n an d Rau sc h was a fri en dl y

on e.

Afte r ob se rv in g R a u s ch an d Sh ek le to n, Dep ut y Eich en be rg er co m m un ic at ed

to th e di sp at ch st at io n th at he ha d ob se rv ed two pe op le arg ui ng ou ts id e McS ha nn y ’s,
th at he be li ev ed on e of th e two was a ba rte nd er at McS ha nn y ’s, an d th at he was go in g
to in ve st ig at e. Dep ut y Eich en be r g e r t h en tu rn ed aro un d an d dr ov e ba ck in th e di rect io n o f McS ha nn y ’s, par ke d, an d wal ke d t o t he ba r.

The Hon or ab le Jo n St u a r t Sco le s, Uni te d St at es Mag is tra te Ju dg e fo r th e 1 Nor th ern Dis tri ct of Io wa, to who m th e cas e was refe rred fo r fin al d i s p o s i t i o n by

co ns en t o f th e p art ie s p ur su an t t o 2 8 U.S.C. § 63 6( c).

In hi s co m

pl a i nt , Sh ek le to n al so as se rte d a se ct io n 19 83 cl ai m ag ai ns t th e 2 Co un ty for fai lu re to ade qu at el y tra in it s o ffi cers as we ll as s ta te law cl ai m s ag ai ns t Dep ut y Eich en be rg er an d th e Co un ty fo r as sa ul t an d ba tt ery. The fai lu re to tra in an d “offi ci al cap aci ty” cl ai m s were di sm is se d by th e di st ric t co ur t, an d th e st at e c l a i ms

rem ai n p en di ng . Thes e cl ai m s ar e n ot pa rt o f th is in te rlo cu to ry ap pe al

.

-2-W he n Dep ut y Eich en be rg er arri ve d on fo ot at McS ha nn y ’s, Sh ek le to n wa s

walk in g away fro m th e ba r an d Ra u sc h ha d al read y go ne in si de

. Dep ut y Eich en be rg er ap pr oa ch ed Sh ek le to n an d as ke d hi m why he h a d b e e n arg ui ng wit h
Rau sc h. Sh ek le to n ex pl ai ne d to Dep ut y Eich en be rg er t ha t th e two ha d no t be en
arg ui ng

. Dep ut y Eich en be rg er as ke d th e sa m e qu es ti on ag ai n, Sh ek le to n ag ai n

res po nd ed th at th ere ha d be en no arg um en t an d su gg es te d th at Dep ut y Eich en be rg er
go in to McS ha nn y ’s an d as k Rau sc h if th e two ha d be en arg ui ng

. At th is po in t, two

ot he r of fic ers —re sp on di ng to D ep uty E ic he nb erg er’s rad io tra ns m is si on —ar riv ed on th e sc en e. Dep ut y Eich en be rg er di rect ed th e two of fic e r s to go in th e ba r an d as k
Rau sc h wh at ha d o ccu rred ou ts id e wit h S he kl et on

.

Dep ut y Eich en be rg er be li ev ed Sh ek le to n was in to xi cat ed an d as ke d hi m to

m ov e away from

th e st reet co rn er. In res po ns e, Sh ek le to n m ov ed ba ck to ward s t he
bu il di ng s al on g th e st reet an d le an ed ag ai ns t th e wall of a st or e ad jacen t to
McS ha nn y ’s. Dep ut y Eich en be rg er th en as ke d Sh ek le to n fo r a th ird ti m e to ex pl ai n why he ha d be en arg ui ng wit h Rau sc h. Acc o r d i n g to Dep ut y Eich en be rg er, Sh ek le to n th en be cam e ag it at ed
, to ld Dep ut y Eich en be rg er he had no t be en arg ui ng wit h Rau sc h, an d d em an de d t ha t Dep ut y Eich en be rg er “ fu ck in g ap ol og iz e” to hi m

. Sh ek le to n ag rees he as ke d for an ap ol og y , bu t de ni es us in g an ob sc en it y

. The th ree affi an t wi tn es se s s up po rt S he kl et on ’s ver si on of e ve nt s. 3

Afte r Sh ek le to n de m an de d an ap ol og y fro m Dep ut y Eich en be rg er, Sh ek le to n
st op pe d le an in g ag ai ns t th e wall
, un fo ld ed hi s arm s, an d tu rn ed to w a r d D e pu ty Eich en be rg er. D ep uty E ic he nbe rg er be lie ve d thi s be ha vio r was th reat en in g; ho wev er, Sh ek le to n st at ed un de r oa th th at h e d id no t be ha ve ag gr es si ve ly to ward s Dep ut y

In hi s affi da vi t, Sch oe nf

el d st at ed if Dep ut y Eich en be rg er an d Sh ek le to n were 3 in a he at ed arg um en t, he di d no t no ti ce it an d di d no t he ar Sh ek le to n us e an ob sc en it y to ward th e of

fic ers

. Ran dy Bru m

m on d st at ed in hi s affi da vi t th at Sh ek le to n di d no t

“ y el l[] [o r] s crea m []” a t th e of fic er. In he r affi da vi t, J oy Br um m on d st at ed th at sh e di d n ot rem em

be r Sh ek le to n s weari ng or a ct in g “ be ll ig eren t” to ward s t he off ic er.

-3-Ei c h e n b e rg er. Afte r Sh ek le to n m ov ed away fro m th e wall
, Dep ut y Eich en be rg er 4
twi ce in st ru ct ed Sh ek le to n to pl ace hi s ha nd s be hi nd hi s ba ck

. Sh ek le to n to ld Dep ut y Eich en be rg er bo th ti m es th at he w a s un ab le to pl ace hi s arm s be hi nd hi s ba ck

. In
19 98
, Sh ek le to n su ffer ed a he ad in jury as a res ul t of a hu nt in g acci de nt an d ha s si nc e

su ffer ed fro m le ft- si de dysto ni a, a co nd it io n th at cau se s hi s le ft arm to sh ak e be y on d
hi s c o n t r o l

. Dep ut y Eich en be rg er res po nd ed “ I kn ow” aft er Sh ek le to n to ld hi m he

co ul d no t co nt ro l hi s arm

. (J

. Bru m m on d Aff. ¶ 13 ). Add it io na ll y , S h ek le to n ha s 5
li ve d in New Ham

pt on si nc e 19 97 an d is a well -k no wn bu si n e s s man i n th e

co m m un it y of ap pr ox im at el y 37 00 pe op le ; li ke wis e, m an y in th e s mal l co m m un it y kn ow o f hi s d is ab il it y

.

W he n Sh ek le to n di d no t pl ace hi s arm s be hi nd hi s ba ck
, Dep ut y Eich en be rg er
at t e mp t e d t o ha nd cu ff hi m

. Acco rd in g to Sh ek le to n, Dep ut y Eich en be rg er lo st hi s
gr ip on S h e k le to n as th e two acci de nt al ly fel l in Dep ut y Eich en be rg er’s at te m pt to ha nd cu ff h im

. Acco rd in g to Eich en be rg er, Sh ek le to n br ok e away fro m hi m in an
at te m pt to res is t arres t. At thi s po in t, the ot he r two of fic ers ex it ed McS ha nn y ’s an d

W e no te th at Dep ut y Eich en be rg er de vo te s m uc h of hi s br ie f to hi s arg um en t 4 th at th e d is tri ct co ur t im

pr op erl y co ns id ered cert ai n fa ct s as m at eri al . In p art ic ul ar, Dep ut y Eich en be rg er arg ue s th at be cau se Sh ek le to n ad m it te d th at Dep ut y Eich en be rg er be li ev ed Sh ek le to n an d Rau sc h were arg ui ng a n d b e li ev ed th at Sh ek le to n was be ha vi ng ag gr es s iv el y to ward s hi m , th e te st im on y di sp ut in g th os e fact s is im m at eri al

. Howev er, be cau se an of fic er’s act io ns in an ex ces si ve fo rce cas e

are e va lu at ed un de r an ob jecti ve st an da rd , De pu ty Eic he nb erg er’s be li ef as to wha t

was ha pp en in g is irr el ev an t. See Jo hn so n v. Carr ol l, 65 8 F.3 d 81 9, 82 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). In st ead
, wha t is rel ev an t is whe th er a reas on ab le of fic er wou ld ha ve be li ev ed th e fact s to be as Dep ut y Eich en be rg er be li ev ed th em to be an d whe th er a reas on ab le of fic er wo ul d h av e d et erm in ed th e u se of a tas er was ne ces sa ry un de r th os e fac ts

.
Add it io na ll y , Sch oe nf

el d’s affi da vi t st at es th at he he ard Sh ek le to n te ll Dep ut y 5 Eich en be rg er th at he co ul d no t pu t hi s arm be hi nd hi s ba c k
, an d Jo y Bru m m on d’s affi da vi t st at es th at sh e be li ev ed De p u t y Ei ch en be rg er ob se rv ed Sh ek le to n’s arm tre m or in g. (S ch oe nf

el d Aff . ¶ 14 ); ( J. Br um m on d Aff . ¶ 13 ).

-4-he ard Dep ut y Eich en be rg er te ll Sh ek le to n to st op res is ti ng

. One of th e two of fic ers th en att em

pt ed to he lp res tra in Sh ek le to n b y gra bb in g h is arm

bu t was un ab le to do

so

. At th at po in t, Dep ut y Eich en be rg er y el le d “ ta se r, ta se r, ta se r” an d di sc ha rg ed hi s 6

ta se r at Sh ek le to n wit h th e pr ob es st rik in g Sh ek le to n’s up pe r ch es t an d rib cag e. The
el ect ric ch arg e fro m th e pr ob es cau se d Sh ek le to n to fal l face -fi rs t to th e gr ou nd
, an d

as a res ul t Sh ek le to n s uf

fere d m in or he ad in

juri es

.

W hi le Sh ek le to n was on th e gr ou nd
, he was do ub le -h an dc uf fed
, a pr oc es s th at al lo ws fo r ex tra sp ace be twee n th e arm s. He was arre st ed fo r pu bl ic in to xi cat io n an d
in te rfer en ce wit h of

fic ia l a c t s , bu t was ta ke n to th e ho sp it al fo r tre at m en t of hi s in juri es be fo re b oo ki ng . The ch arg es were l at er d ro pp ed

.

W e m us t no w de te rm in e whe th er th e di st ric t cou rt was corr ect in fin di ng th at Sh ek le to n’s s e c t i o n 19 83 act io n ag ai ns t Dep ut y Eich en be rg er is no t ba rred by th e do ct rin e o f qu al ifi ed im m un it y

.

II.

Qua li fie d im

m un it y pr o t e c ts of

fic ers fro m li ab il it y in a se ct io n 19 83 cas e

“ un le ss th e of

fic ia l’s co nd uc t vi ol at es a cl earl y es ta bl is he d co ns ti tu ti on al or st at ut or y rig ht of whi ch a reas on ab le pe rs on wou ld ha ve kn ow n

. ” Bro wn v. Ci ty of Gol de n Vall ey , 57 4 F.3 d 49 1, 49 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 )

. “We rev ie w de no vo a di st ric t co ur t’s
de ni al of su m

m ary jud gm en t on th e ba si s of qu al ifi ed im m un it y

. W e vi ew th e fact s in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e pl ai nt iff
, acce pt in g as tru e th e fact s th at th e di st ric t

co ur t fo un d were ad eq ua te ly su pp or te d, as well as th e fact s t h e di st ric t co ur t li ke ly

as su m ed .” Id . at 4 95 -9 6 (c it at io n o m it te d)

.

Tha t of fic er st at ed in hi s de po si ti on t h a t Sh ek le to n fo rcef ul ly at te m

pt ed to 6

res is t h im an d b reak free fro m

hi s g rip

.

-5-Eva lu at in g a cl ai m of qu al ifi ed im m un it y req ui res a “t w o -s te p in qu iry: (1 )
whe th er th e fact s sh own by th e pl ai nt iff m ak e ou t a v i o l a t i o n of a co ns ti tu ti on al or
st at ut or y rig ht
, a n d (2 ) whe th er th at rig ht was cl earl y es ta bl is he d at th e ti m e of th e de fen da nt ’s all eg ed m is co nd uc t.” Id . at 4 96

.

W e b eg in ou r in qu iry by de te rm in in g wh et he r Sh ek le to n h as est ab li sh ed th at

a v io la ti on of a co ns ti tu ti on al or s ta tu to ry rig ht oc cu rred

. Sh ek le to n clai m s Depu ty Eich en be rg er vi ol at ed hi s rig ht s by u si ng ex ces si ve for ce i n v io la ti on of th e Fo ur th
Am en dm en t be cau se he de pl oyed hi s ta se r. “ ‘T o es ta bl is h a co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n

un de r th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t’s rig ht to be free fro m ex ces si ve fo rce, th e te st is
whe th er th e am ou nt of fo rce us ed was ob jecti ve ly reas on ab le u n d e r th e pa rti cu la r ci rcu m st an ces .’ ” Jo hn so n v. Carr ol l, 65 8 F.3 d 81 9, 82 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) ( q u o t i ng Bro wn, 57 4 F.3 d at 49 6)

. “ The ‘reaso na bl en es s’ of a pa rti cu la r us e of fo rce m us t be jud ge d fro m th e pe rs pe ct iv e of a reas on ab le of fi c e r o n t h e s c e n e

. . . .” Id

. at 82 6 ( q u o ti ng Grah am v. Co nn or , 49 0 U.S. 38 6, 39 6 (1 98 9) ). “ In de te r mi n i n g

reas on ab le ne ss , a co ur t co ns id ers th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces an d ‘th e se ve rit y of th e cri m e at is su e, th e im m ed ia te th reat th e su sp ect po se s to th e sa fet y of th e of fic er

or ot he rs , and whet he r th e su sp ect is act iv el y res is ti ng or at te m pt in g to ev ad e arr es t by fli gh t.’” Sm it h v. Kan

. Ci ty, Mo

. Po li ce Dep t’, 58 6 F.3 d 57 6, 58 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. Fo rce is “ ‘leas t ju st ifi ed ag ai ns t n on vi ol en t m is de m ean an ts who
do no t fle e o r a c t i v e l y r es is t arre st an d po se li tt le or no th reat to th e se cu rit y of th e of fic ers or th e pu bl ic .’ ” Jo hn so n, 65 8 F. 3 d a t 8 2 7 -2 8 (q uo ti ng Bro wn, 57 4 F.3 d at
49 9)

.

Viewi ng th e fact s in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to Sh ek le to n, a reas on ab le of fic er

wou ld no t ha ve co nc lu de d th at an arg um en t oc cu rred be twee n Sh ek le to n an d Rau sc h.
W he n Dep ut y Eich en be rg er arri ve d at th e sc en e, Rau sc h was i n s id e th e ba r, an d
Sh ek le to n was le av in g th e area

. Sh ek le to n to ld Dep ut y Eich en be rg er rep eat ed ly th at he ha d no t be en arg ui ng wit h Rau sc h. Sh ek le to n co m pl ie d wit h th e of

fic er’s or de rs
to st ep away fro m th e st reet an d di d no t be h a v e ag gr es si ve ly to ward s Dep ut y

-6-Ei c h e n be rg er, no r di d Sh ek le to n di rect ob sc en it ie s to ward s Eich en be rg er or y el l a t

hi m

. W he n Depu ty E ic he nb erg er t ol d S he kl et on to pl ace h is arm s b eh in d hi s bac k,
Sh ek le to n to ld Dep ut y Eich en be rg er rep eat ed ly th at he co ul d no t ph y si cal ly do so

. Sh ek le to n’s di sa bi li ty was well kn own in th e co m m un it y of New Ham

pt on , an d
Eich en be rg er ve rb al ly ack no wled ge d he was aware th a t Sh ek le to n co ul d no t ph y si cal ly pl ace hi s arm s be hi nd hi s b a c k

. Alt ho ug h Dep ut y Eich en be rg er an d
Sh ek le to n fel l ap art fro m each ot he r whe n D e p u t y Eich en be rg er at te m pt ed to ha nd cu ff Sh ek le to n, Sh ek le to n di d no t res is t an d di d no t in te nt io na ll y cau se th e two

to bre ak ap art

.

Und er th es e fact s, Sh ek le to n was an un a r med su sp ect ed m is de m ean an t, who
di d no t res is t arre st , di d no t th reat en th e of fic er, di d no t at te m

pt to ru n fro m hi m , an d
di d no t be ha ve ag gr es si ve ly to ward s hi m

. Sh ek le to n ha s es ta bl is he d th at a vi ol at io n of a co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht oc cu rred in th at a reas on ab le of fic er wou ld no t ha ve de pl oyed
hi s ta se r un de r th e ci rcu m st an ces as pr es en te d by Sh ek le to n. See Jo hn so n, 65 8 F.3 d

at 82 7- 28

.

Hav in g de te rm in ed t h a t S h ek le to n ha s es ta bl is he d th at a vi ol at io n of a

co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht oc cu rred
, we m ov e to ou r ne xt in qu iry: de te rm in in g whe th er Dep ut y Eich en be rg er’s us e of th e ta s er ag ai ns t Sh ek le to n co ns ti tu te d a cl earl y

es ta bl is he d co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n. Dep ut y Eich en be rg er co nt en ds in hi s br ie f th at

at th e ti m e of th e in ci de nt it was no t a cl earl y es ta bl is he d vi ol at io n of law to us e hi s
ta se r un de r th e ci rcu m st an ces an d c on te nd s t ha t o ur tas er jur is pr ud en ce i s i n a st at e of flu x.

W he n d et erm in in g wh et he r an act io n was a cl earl y est ab li sh ed co ns ti tu ti on al
vi ol at io n, we lo o k t o th e st at e of th e la w at th e ti m e of th e in ci de nt

. Nor m an v. S c hu et zl e, 58 5 F.3 d 10 97
, 11 09 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ), ov erru le d on ot he r gr ou nd s b y Pear so n v. Cal la ha n , 55 5 U.S. 22 3 (2 00 9)

. “ The rel ev an t, di sp os it iv e in qu iry in
de te rm in in g whe th er a rig ht is cl earl y es ta bl is he d is w h e t h e r i t wou ld be cl ear to a

-7-reas on ab le of fic er th at hi s co nd uc t was un la wfu l in th e si tu at io n he co nf ro nt ed .”
Sau ci er v. Katz , 53 3 U.S. 1 94 , 20 2 (2 00 1) . “ [A] gen eral co ns ti tu ti on al ru le al read y id en ti fie d in th e de ci si on al la w m ay ap pl y wit h ob vi ou s cl ari ty to th e sp eci fic co nd uc t in qu es ti on , ‘even th ou gh th e ve ry act io n in qu es ti on ha s [n ot ] pr ev io us ly be en he ld

un la wfu l.’” Hop e v

. P e l z e r , 53 6 U.S. 73 0, 74 1 (2 00 2) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Lan ie r, 52 0 U.S. 2 59 , 27 1 (1 99 7) ).

Dep ut y Eich en be rg er is co rrec t th at at th e ti m e of th e in ci de nt , we ha d no t y et ha d an op po rtu ni ty to de te rm in e whe th er an offi cer’s us e of a ta se r on a no nv io le nt ,

no nf le ei ng m is de m ean an t was an ex ces si ve us e of f o r c e

. Howev er, th e rig ht to be
free fro m ex ces si ve fo r c e d a t es ba ck to th e ad op ti on of th e Bi ll of Ri gh ts of ou r Co ns ti tu ti on , as it is “ ‘a cl ear l y es ta bl is he d rig ht un de r th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t’s

pr oh ib it io n ag ai ns t un reas on ab le se iz ur es of th e pe rs on

. . . .’ ” McGru de r v. Heag woo d, 19 7 F.3 d 91 8, 9 1 9 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 ) (q uo ti ng Gui te v. W rig ht
, 14 7 F.3 d
74 7, 7 5 0 (8 th Ci r. 19 98 )). Tha t th e le ve l of fo rce us ed m us t be jus ti fie d in li gh t of

“ th e se ve rit y of th e cri m e at is su e,” th e su sp ect ’s fli gh t ris k, an d th e im m ed ia cy of th e

r is k po se d by th e su sp ect to th e sa fet y of of fic ers an d ot he rs was t h e c l e a r l y

es ta bl is he d l aw on th e ni gh t of th e in ci de nt . Graha m

v. Co nn or , 49 0 U.S. 3 86 , 39 6 (1 98 9)

.

In Bro wn v. Ci ty of Gol de n Vall ey , 57 4 F.3 d at 49 1, de ci de d aft er th e in ci de nt be twee n Sh ek le to n an d Dep ut y Eich en be rg er, we were pr es en te d wit h an offic er’s us e of a ta se r in fact s si m il ar to t h is cas e. The re, we de te rm in ed th at th e ge ne ral la w
p r oh ib it in g ex ces si ve fo rce in pl ace at th e ti m e of th e in ci de nt was su ffi ci e n t t o in fo rm an of

fic er th at u s e of hi s ta se r on a no nf le ei ng , no nv io le nt su sp ect ed

m is de m ean an t was un reas on ab le
, ev en th ou gh we di d no t h a v e a cas e sp eci fic al ly
ad dr es si ng off

ic er t as er u se pri or to th e in ci de nt . Id. at 49 9- 50 0.

As in Bro wn, we ag ree th at th e ge ne ral co ns ti tu ti o na l pr in ci pl es ag ai ns t

ex ces si ve fo rce th at were cl earl y e s t a b l is he d at th e ti m e of th e in ci de nt be twee n

-8-Dep ut y Eich en be rg er an d Sh ek le to n were su ch as to pu t a reas on ab le of fic er on no ti ce th at ta se rin g Sh ek l e t o n un de r th e ci rcu m st an ces as pr es en te d by Sh ek le to n was

ex ces si ve for ce i n v io la ti on of t he cle arl y est ab li sh ed law.

III.

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we affi rm th e op in io n of th e di st ric t co ur t de nyin g Dep ut y Eich en be rg er’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-9-