# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 6- 35 23

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Darre ll Fred eri ck , Pers on al Rep res en ta ti ve of th e Est at e o f Fal lo n F red eri ck , Deceas ed

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

Vin ce M ot si ng er, et al.

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - F ay et te vi ll e

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Ju ne 8, 2 01 7 Fil ed : Oct ob er 1 7, 2 01 7

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re LOKEN, MURPHY, and MELLOY, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ LOKEN, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

Po li ce of fic ers cal le d to a co nv en ie nc e st or e in Ro ge rs , Ark an sa s, co nf ro nt ed
Fal lo n Fred eri ck , h ol di ng a fo ur -in ch fo ld in g k n i f e an d erra ti cal ly p aci ng ba ck an d
fo rth in a co rn er ne ar two res tro om s. Fred eri ck refu se d to co m pl y wit h Serg ean t Sco tt Cl ift on ’s rep eat ed co m

m an ds to dr op th e kn ife

. Offi cer Nick Tork el so n di sc ha rg edh i s t a s e r bu t Fred eri ck bl oc ke d on e pr ob e wit h he r pu rs e an d ch arg ed th e of fic er s

. Offi cer Ven ce Mo ts in ge r, pr ov id in g c ov er fo r Tor ke ls on , sh ot an d k il le d h er. 1

The rep res en ta ti ve of Fred eri ck ’s Est at e, Darre ll Fred eri ck
, fil ed th is act io n
ag ai ns t th e Ci ty of Ro ge rs an d Offi cers Mo ts in ge r, Cl ift on , an d Tork el so n as se rti ng

ex ces si ve fo rce Fou rth Am en dm en t clai m s un de r 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 ; fals e arre st an d

as sa ul t an d ba tt ery cl ai m s un de r st at e la w; an d cl ai m s un de r th e Ark an sa s W ro ng fu l
Deat h St at ut e (AW DS) an d Ark an sa s Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act (ACRA). Defen da nt s m ov ed
fo r su m m ary jud gm en t on th e m eri ts , al so as se rti ng th e de fen se of qu al ifi ed im m un it y fro m Fo ur th Am en dm en t da m ag e cl ai m s ag ai ns t th e in di vi du al of fic ers

. In res po ns e, th e Est at e wit hd rew it s of fic ia l cap aci ty cl ai m s ag ai ns t th e of fic ers an d th e Ci ty. The
di st ric t co ur t, ap pl y in g Grah am v. Co nn or , 49 0 U.S. 38 6 (1 98 9)
, to th e F o ur th

2
Am en dm en t an d ACRA ex ces si ve f o r c e c la im s, gr an te d su m m ary jud gm en t 3
di sm is si ng al l rem ai ni ng cl ai m s. The Est at e ap pe al s di sm is sa l of th e ex ces si ve fo rce cl ai m s. Rev ie win g th e gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t de no vo an d vi ewin g th e fact s in
th e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e Est at e as th e n on -m ov in g p art y , we affi rm

. Bro ss art
v. J an ke , 85 9 F .3d 61 6, 6 20 (8t h C ir. 2 01 7) (st an da rd of r ev ie w).

I.

Fred eri ck en te red th e co nv en ie nc e st or e jus t aft er 10 :3 0 a.m

. on Aug u s t 1,
20 11

. A st or e su rv ei ll an ce vi de o cap tu red th e tra gi c ev en ts of th e ne xt te n m in ut es ,
an d Offi cer Tork el so n’s m ic ro ph on e au di o- reco rd ed ev en ts aft er he arri ve d. Hol di ng

a fo ur -in ch fo ld in g kn ife
, Fred eri ck to ld st or e cl erk Eli da San do va l to cal l 91 1. Fro m

The cas e cap ti on m is sp el ls Mo ts in ge r’s fir st na m e as “ Vin ce.” 1

The Hon or ab le Ti mo t h y L. Bro ok s, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 2 W es te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.

The pa rti es ag ree with th e d is tri ct co ur t th at Ark an sa s cou rts an al y ze ACRA 3

ex ces si ve for ce cl ai m s u nd er Grah am ’s ob jecti ve reas on ab le ne ss st an da rd

.
-2

-be hi nd a co un te r, th e fri gh te n e d San do va l ha nd ed Fred eri ck th e ph on e. Fred eri ck

di al ed 91 1. Aud io of th e cal l reco rd s he r as ki ng th e op erat or to se nd po li ce be cau se sh e was “ be in g fo ll owe d.” The op erat or as ke d fo r m or e de ta il ; Fred eri ck hu ng up an d
di al ed ag ai n. A s eco nd op erat or as ke d wha t was ha pp en in g. Fre d e r ic k res po nd ed
,

“ I real ly wou ld li ke to sa y , bu t I wou ld li ke a po li ce of fic er to sh ow up , pl eas e.” The

op erat or to ld Fred eri ck po li ce were en ro ut e to th e st or e. Dis pa tc he rs no ti fie d po li ce th at th e cal le r at th e st or e was “ ira te ,” “ no t li st en in g,” an d un ab le to an swe r qu es ti on s ab ou t wh o was fol lo win g h er.

Offi cer Mo ts in ge r was di sp at ch ed to th e sc en e. Serg ean t Cl ift on was ne ar th e
st or e, he ard th e di sp at ch
, an d went to th e st or e to co m fo rt th e cal le r un ti l Mo ts in ge r arri ve d. Cl ift on en te red th e st o re’s no rth wes t co rn er an d sa w Fred eri ck
, who ha d
walk ed to th e no rth eas t co rn er, ne xt to do or s to two res tro om s. Fred eri ck de m an de d,

“ I wan t to se e y ou r ba dg e nu m be r.” Cl ift on st at ed it

. Fred eri ck ex ci te dl y an no un ced
sh e ha d a kn ife
, whi ch Cl ift on co ul d se e. Cl ift on ba ck ed away fro m Fred eri ck
, dr ew hi s fir earm , an d rad io ed fo r as si st an ce, st at in g “ I’ve go t on e at gu np oi nt ; sh e’s go t a kn ife in si de th e st or e.” Fred eri ck sa id sh e di d no t be li ev e Cl ift on was a po li ce of fic er,
ag ai n as ke d hi s ba dg e nu m be r, an d de m an de d to kn ow whe re hi s ba ck up was , m ak in g
qu ic k, im pa ti en t m ov em en ts

. A cu st om er ru sh ed ou t of th e st or e. Cl ift on , co nc ern ed

so m eo ne m ig ht ex it th e res tro om s, to ld Fred eri ck to dr op th e kn ife
, sa y in g, “ I’m he re
to he lp y ou . Nob od y

ha s t o g et hu rt.” Fred eri ck di d n ot co m pl y

.

Offi cer Nick Tork el so n arri ve d on e m in ut e aft er Cl ift on req ue st ed ba ck up

. W he n To r k e l s o n en te red
, Fred eri ck as ke d hi s ba dg e nu m be r. Cl ift on res po nd ed

. Fred eri ck as ke d why Cl ift on kn ew Tork el so n’s ba dg e nu m be r. Cl ift on ex pl ai ne d he

was a su p e r v i s o r on th e fo rce. Tork el so n to ld Cl ift on he ha d a be an ba g sh ot gu n in
hi s pa tro l car; Cl ift on di rect ed Tork el so n to us e hi s ta se r in st ead

. Tork el so n
pr oc eed ed do wn th e ai sl e to ward Fred eri ck
, who was ho ld in g th e kn ife “ in a st ab bi ng
po si ti on ” or “ pi ck st y le .” Lik e Cl ift on , Tork el so n was un ab le to as se ss who el se was in th e st or e. Fred eri ck to ld Tork el so n, “ I do no t be li ev e th at y ou ’re a po li ce of fic er,”

-3

-an d “ I’m a pa ran oi d sc hi zo ph ren ic .” Tork el so n sa id
, “ I’m go nn a ha ve to ta se y ou if

y ou do n’t d ro p t he kn ife , ok ay ? I ne ed y ou to dro p t he kn ife .”

At th is po in t, Mo ts in ge r en te red th e st or e an d sa w th at Cl ift on ’s gu n was dr awn

an d Tork el so n was de pl oyin g hi s ta se r at Fred eri ck

. Mo ts in ge r pr oc eed ed do wn th e ai sl e to pr ov id e Tork el so n le th al co ve r. Tork el so n an d Cl ift on ag ai n as ke d Fred eri ck

to dr op th e kn ife bu t sh e di d no t. Tork el so n wait ed un ti l Fred eri ck ’s bl ad e was faci ng do wn, so sh e w o u l d no t fal l on it
, an d di sc ha rg ed hi s ta se r. One pr ob e st ru ck
Fred eri ck in th e ch es t bu t th e ot he r lo dg ed in he r pu rs e, so th e pr ob es d id no t

co m pl et e an el ect ric al ci rcu it an d Fred eri ck was no t in cap aci ta te d. Sh e pa us ed fo r a

m om en t, th en y el le d, rai se d he r kn ife
, an d ch arg ed to ward Tork el so n in an ap pa ren t effo rt to st ab hi m

. The st or e vi de o co nf irms th at Fred eri ck ch arg ed wit h he r kn ife in

a s ta bb in g po si ti on

. Tork el so n te st ifi ed he “ was in fear th at sh e was go in g to st ab

m e.” Mo ts in ge r te st ifi ed th at he fear ed fo r Tork el so n’s li fe whe n Fred eri ck st art ed
ch arg in g to ward hi m

. As Tork el so n ret reat ed
, Mo ts in ge r th rew hi m ou t of th e li ne of fir e an d fi red th ree s ho ts at F red eri ck , who su ccu m be d t o t he wou nd s.

Bo th Cl ift on an d Tork el so n te st ifi ed th at th ro ug ho ut th is en co un te r th ey be li ev ed Fred eri ck was im pa ire d by m et ha m

phe ta m ine or som e oth er st im ul an t, as sh e

was m ov in g erra ti cal ly an d ex pr es si ng il lo gi cal th ou gh ts

. Bo th of fic ers were dr es se d
in po li ce at ti re, wit h na m e ta gs , fir earm s, pa tc he s, an d d u t y b e l ts , bu t Fred eri ck

rep e a t e d ly qu es ti on ed whe th er th ey were po li ce of fic ers

. Afte r th e in ci de nt , st or e cl erk San do va l t o l d p o li ce th at Fred eri ck ap pe ared to be “ on dr ug s,” as sh e was

s h a k i ng an d swe at in g in an ab no rm al m an ne r. Tox ic ol og y te st s co nf irmed th a t Fred eri ck was u nd er t he in flu en ce o f m et ha m ph et am in e at th e ti m e.

-4

-II

.

In th e di st ric t co ur t, th e pa rti es de ba te d whe n Fred eri ck was se iz ed fo r Fo ur th
Am en dm en t pu rp os es

. Defen da nt s arg ue d se iz ur e oc cu rred whe n Frede ri ck was sh ot

. The Est at e fo cu se d on th e ev en ts pr eced in g th e sh oo ti ng , in cl ud in g Tork el so n’s

at te m pt ed ta si ng

. The di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d th at Cl ift on se iz ed Fred eri ck whe n he
he ld he r at gu np oi nt an d sh e su bm it te d to th at au th or it y un ti l aft er th e at te m pt ed

ta si ng , when sh e ch arg ed at To rk el so n wi th he r kn ife . The d is tri ct co ur t co nc lu de d
th at th e of fic ers were ob

jecti ve ly reas on ab le in ta si ng Fred eri ck an d th en sh oo ti ng he r whe n s h e c ha rg ed th em , an d th at th e of fic ers are en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y be cau se th ey di d no t vi ol at e Fred eri ck ’s cl early es ta bli she d Fo ur

th A m en dm en t righ ts

.

On ap pe al , th e Est at e’s Bri ef arg ue d th at su m m ary jud gm en t was im

pr op erl y
gr an te d bec au se th e o ffi cers ’ us e o f ex ces si ve fo rce in ta si ng Fred eri ck vi ol at ed th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t an d pr ox im at el y cau se d Fred eri ck ’s ki ll in g be cau se it pr ov ok ed
he r vi ol en t reac ti on th at ga ve ris e to Mo ts in ge r’s us e of d e a dl y fo rce. The Est at e rel ie d on th e Nin th Ci rcu it ’s “ pr ov oc at io n ru le ” -- “ W he re an of fic er in te nt io na ll y or reck le ss ly pr ov ok es a vi ol en t co nf ro nt at io n, if th e pr ov oc at io n is an in de pe nd en t
Fo ur th Am en dm en t vi ol at io n, he m ay be he ld li ab le fo r hi s ot he rwis e de fen si ve us e of de ad ly fo rce.” Glen n v

. W as h. Ct y ., 67 3 F.3 d 86 4, 87 9 (9 th Ci r. 20 11 ); co nt ra Sch ul z v. Lon g, 44 F.3 d 64 3, 64 8- 49 (8 th Ci r. 19 95 ) (ev id en ce of fic ers crea te d ne ed
fo r us e o f de ad ly force irr el ev an t t o re as on ab le ne ss is su e).

W it h th is ap pe al awai ti ng or al arg um en t, th e Su pr em e Co ur t reject ed th e Nin th
Ci rcu it ’s pr ov oc at io n rul e, ag reei ng wit h ot he r ci rcu it s th at it s “ fu nd am en ta l fla w is
th at it us es an ot he r co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n to m an uf act ur e an ex ces si ve fo rce cl ai m whe re on e wou ld no t ot he rwis e ex is t.” Ct y

. of L.A. v. Men de z, 13 7 S. Ct

. 15 39
, 15 46 (2 01 7)

. The Co u r t mad e cl ear th at “ th e ob jecti ve reas on ab le ne ss an al y si s m us t be

co nd uc te d se pa rat el y fo r each se arch or se iz ur e th at is al le ge d to be un co ns ti tu ti on al .”
Id

. at 15 47

. If th e us e of de ad l y f o r c e w a s ob

jecti ve ly reas on ab le un de r Grah am ,

-5

-ba se d on wha t th e of fic ers kn e w whe n th e fo rce was ap pl ie d, “ it m ay no t be fo un d

un reas on ab le by refe ren ce to so m e se pa rat e co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n.” Id

. at 54 7 n.*

.

The Est at e’s Bri ef di d no t arg ue th at it w as ob jecti ve ly un reas on ab le fo r Offi cer Mo ts in ge r to us e de ad ly fo rce ag ai ns t a su sp ect wh o w as ch arg in g a fel lo w of fic er wit h a kn ife rai se d in a st ab bi ng po si ti on

. Our pr io r cas es su pp or t th e di st ric t co ur t’s

co nc lu si on th at Mo ts in ge r’s us e of de ad ly fo rce in th is si tu at io n was reas on ab le

. See Aip pe rs pa ch v. McI ne rn ey , 76 6 F.3 d 80 3, 80 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ), cert

. de ni ed
, 13 5 S. Ct

. 14 15 (2 01 5) ; Est at e of Mo rg an v. Co ok
, 6 8 6 F.3 d 49 4, 49 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ); acco rd
Ci ty & Cty

. of S.F. v. Shee ha n, 13 5 S. Ct. 176 5, 17 75 (2 01 5)

. Co ns is te nt wit h th is

pr eced en t, cou ns el fo r th e Est at e co nc ed ed at or al arg um en t th at , ap pl y in g Men de z, th e sh oo ti ng of Fred eri ck di d no t in it se lf gi ve ris e to a Fo ur th Am en dm en t vi ol at io n.

At o ral arg um en t, the Est at e arg ue d th at th e at te m pt ed ta si ng was ob

jecti ve ly

un reas on ab le
, an d th is was a di st in ct Fo ur th Am en dm en t cl ai m rai se d an d arg ue d in
th e di st ric t co ur t an d vi go ro us ly pu rs ue d on ap pe al

. The Su pr em e Co ur t in Men de z

no te d “t h e p r i nc ip le th at pl ai nt iff s can -- su bjec t to qu al ifi ed im m un it y -- ge ne ral ly

reco ve r da m ag es th at are pr ox im at el y cau se d by an y Fo ur th Am en d men t vi ol at io n.

. . . The ha rm pr ox im at el y cau se d by

. . . two [Fo ur th Am en d men t ] to rts

m ay ov erl ap , bu t th e two cl ai m s sh ou ld no t be co nf us ed .” 13 7 S. Ct

. at 15 48

. Thu s,

we m us t ad dr es s t he Fo ur th Am en dm en t t as in g c la im

.

II I.

The Fo ur th Am en dm en t ’s o bjec ti ve reas on ab le ne ss st an da rd go ve rn s cl ai m s th at of fic ers “ us ed ex ces si ve fo rce in th e c ou rs e of m ak in g an arre st , in ve st ig at or y
st op , or ot he r ‘seiz ur e.’” Gr a h a m, 4 9 0 U

. S. at 38 8. The in qu iry “ req ui res care fu l

at te nt io n to th e fact s an d ci rcu m st an ces of each pa rti cu la r cas e, in cl ud in g th e se ve rit y of th e cri m e at is su e, whe th er t he su sp ect po se s an im m ed ia te th reat to th e sa fet y of
th e of f i c e r s or ot he rs , a nd whe th er [s ]he is act iv el y res is ti ng arre st or at te m pt in g to

-6

-ev ad e arre st by fli gh t.” Id

. at 39 6. Co ur ts m us t c o n s i d e r “ th e reas on ab le ne ss of a
pa rti cu la r us e of fo rce .

. . fro m th e pe rs pe ct iv e of a reas on ab le of fic er on th e sc en e,
rat he r th an wit h th e 20 /2 0 vi si on of hi nd si gh t.” Men de z , 1 3 7 S

. C t

. at 15 46 (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. W e as se ss th e reas on ab le ne ss of each in di vi du al of fic er’s

co nd uc t, be cau se “ § 19 83 li ab il it y is pe rs on al .” Dor an v. Eck ol d, 40 9 F.3 d 95 8, 96 5 (8 th Ci r.) (en ba nc ), cert

. de ni ed
, 54 6 U.S. 10 32 (2 00 5)

. Co nt r a r y t o th e Est at e’s 4

co nt en ti on , w h e t h er th e of fic ers ’ us e of fo rce was co ns ti tu ti on al ly ex ces si ve is an is su e o f la w for th e co ur t. Bro ss art , 85 9 F .3d at 6 24

.

Num ero us cas es ha ve up he ld us e of ta se rs to co nt rol po te nt ia ll y vi ol en t, de fia nt de ta in ees who po se a sa fet y ris k to th e of fic ers or ot he rs , pa rti cu la rly whe n th e of fic er

warn s th at a ta se r wil l be us ed
, as O f f i c e r To r k e ls on di d he re. See Id

. at 62 5; De
Bo is e v. Tase r In t’l, In c., 76 0 F.3 d 89 2, 89 6 (8t h Cir. 20 14 ), cert

. de ni ed
, 13 5 S. Ct

. 2 3 48 (2 01 5)

. On th e ot he r ha nd
, we ha ve he ld th at it is “ un la wfu l t o Ta s e r a

no nv io le nt , su sp ect ed m is de m ean an t who was no t fle ei ng or res is ti ng ar res t, who

po se d li tt le to no th reat to an y on e’s sa fet y , an d who se on ly no nc om pl ia nc e wit h th e

o f f i c e r ’s co m

m an ds was to di so be y two or de rs to en d he r ph on e cal l to a 9 1 1

op era t or .” Bro wn v. Ci ty of Gol de n Vall ey , 57 4 F.3 d 49 1, 49 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ),
fo ll owe d in Sh ek le to n v. Eich en be rg er, 67 7 F.3 d 36 1, 36 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ). In th is

cas e, we ag ree wit h th e d i s t ric t co ur t th at Offi cer Tork el so n’s de ci si on to us e no nle th al fo rce, hi s ta se r, in an at te m pt to di sa rm Fred er i c k a f te r sh e refu se d rep eat ed

warn in gs to dr op a fo ur -in ch kn ife was ob jecti ve ly reaso na bl e -- Fr ed eri ck was i n a

sm al l co m

m erci al sp ace, in fro nt of res tro om s th at m ig ht ha ve be en oc cu pi ed
, an d
br an di sh in g a weap on th at po se d a da ng er t o t he off ic ers an d s to re cu st om ers

.

The Est at e arg ue s t ha t Fr ed eri ck ha d n ot di rect ly th reat en ed th e of fic ers wit h
he r kn ife be fo re she was ta se d. Bu t sh e was act in g erra ti cal ly, ex pr es si ng irr at io na l

Offi cer Mo ts in ge r en te red th e st or e on ly se co nd s be fo re Tork el so n di sc ha rg ed 4 hi s t as er, s o M ot si ng er ca nn ot be pe rs on al ly liab le for th is us e o f fo rce.

-7

-th ou gh ts , ho ld in g a kn ife in a st ab bi ng po si ti on , ch al le ng in g t he off ic ers ’ au th or it y ,
an d di so be y in g co m

m an ds to dr op he r kn ife

. W hi le Fred eri ck di d no t lu ng e at th e of fic ers pr io r to be in g ta se d, To r k e l so n an d Cl ift on reas on ab ly pe rcei ve d sh e was read y to us e he r kn ife ag ai ns t th em or ot he rs

. As in Sco tt v. Harris
, “ it is cl ear from
th e vi de ot ap e th at [Fre de r ic k] po se d an act ua l an d im m in en t th reat ” of ha rm to th e of fic ers an d ot he rs in th e st or e. 55 0 U.S. 37 2, 38 4 (2 00 7)

. The of fic ers di d no t ne ed

to wait un ti l Fred eri ck at ta ck ed th em

. “ [I]t is reas on ab le fo r po li ce to m ov e qu ic kl y if d el ay wou ld gr av el y en da ng er the ir li ve s o r th e li ve s o f ot he rs .” Sh eeh an , 13 5 S

. Ct

. at 17 75 (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. Eve n if sh e was su ff e r in g fro m m en ta l il ln es s or
ot he r im pa irment, th e rel ev an t in qu iry is whe th er sh e po se d a th reat , no t wha t

pr om pt ed he r th reat en in g co nd uc t. See Mo rg an , 68 6 F.3 d at 49 8 (in to xi cat io n) ; Hay ek v. Ci ty of St

. Pau l, 48 8 F.3 d 10 49
, 10 55 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (m en ta l i l l n es s) ; H a s s a n v. Ci ty of Mi nn eap ol is
, 48 9 F.3 d 91 4, 91 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (m en ta l il ln es s) ; San de rs v. Ci ty of Mi nn eap ol is , 47 4 F .3d 52 3, 5 27 (8t h Ci r. 20 07 ) (m en ta l i ll ne ss ).

The di st ric t co ur t al so he ld th at th e of fic ers are en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y be cau se “ it wa s cert ai nl y no t cl earl y es ta bl is he d th at ta si ng a pe rs on st an di ng in a
pu bl ic area who refu se d se ve ral co m m an ds to dr op a kn ife wou ld vi ol at e th at pe rs on ’s

co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s.” W e ag ree. W ha t i s “cl e a r l y es ta bl is he d la w sh ou ld no t be
de fin ed at a hi gh le ve l of ge ne ral it y

. . . [b ut ] m us t be pa rti cu la riz ed to th e fact s of th e

cas e.” W hi te v. Pau ly, 13 7 S. Ct

. 54 8, 55 2 (2 01 7) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. Alt ho ug h th e Su pr em e Co ur t “ do es no t req ui re a cas e di rect ly on po in t fo r a r i g h t to be cl earl y

es ta bl is he d, ex is ti ng pr eced en t m us t ha ve pl aced th e

. . . co ns ti tu ti o n al qu es ti on be y on d de ba te ” at th e ti m e th e of fic ers act ed

. Id

. at 55 1 (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. As th e ab ov e-ci te d Eig ht h Ci rcu it cas es de m on st rat e, ex is ti ng pr eced en t di d no t pl ace

“ be y on d de ba te ” th at th e of fi ce rs vio la te d Fr ed er ic k’ s Fo urth Am en dm en t rig ht s whe n th ey di sc ha rg ed a ta se r at Fred eri ck in th es e ci rcu m st an ces

.

The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

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

-8

-