# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 3- 27 42

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Eug en e Car l De Bo is e, Sr.; T.E.R., a m in or ch il d b y hi s n ex t fr ie nd , Ann el ie se Hub ba rd ; A.N.D., a m in or ch il d b y he r ne xt fri en d S he en a Ma rie Perry

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

ff s - Ap pe ll an ts

v.

Tase r In te rn at io na l, In c.

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

an t

St . Lou is Co un ty, Mi ss ou ri; Bret Liv el y , Pol ic e Offi cer, i n h is in di vi du al cap aci ty;

Jo se ph Perc ic h, Po li ce Offi cer, i n h is in di vi du al cap aci ty

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 Eas te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - St . Lou is

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Apri l 1 7, 2 01 4
Fil ed : J ul y

28 , 20 14

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re WOL LMAN, BYE, and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

SHEPHERD, Cir cu it Ju dg e.App el la nt s, th e fat he r an d m in or ch il dr en of th e de c e a s e d Sam ue l De Bo is e,

br ou gh t a 42 U.S.C. § 1 9 8 3 a c t io n ag ai ns t Offi cers Bret Liv el y an d Jo se ph Perc ic h

of th e St

. Lou i s C o u n t y Po li ce Dep art m en t an d a cl ai m un de r th e Am eri can s wit h

Dis ab il it ie s Act (ADA) ag ai ns t St

. Lou is Co un ty, Mi ss ou ri. Of fic ers Liv el y an d 1

Perc ic h m ov ed fo r su m

m ary jud gm en t on th e ba s i s o f qu al ifi ed im m un it y , an d St

. Lou is Co un ty m ov ed fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, cl ai m in g no ADA vi ol at io n o c c u r r ed

du e to ex ig en t an d un ex pe ct ed ci rcu m st an ces

. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d b o th 2

m ot io ns , and we affi rm

.

I.

De Bo is e su ffer ed fro m sc hi zo ph ren ia

, whi ch cau se d hi m to ex pe rie nc e se rio us

ps y ch ot ic ep is od es

. On th e ev en in g of Ju ly 7, 20 08

, De Bo is e be cam e de lu si on al an d

le ft hi s ho m e na ke d. The ne xt m or ni ng , ne ig hb or s rep or te d se ei ng De Bo is e ro am in g

th e ne ig hb or ho od

, be at in g ho us es wit h a st ic k, and cl ai m in g to be God

. Tha t ni gh t,

De Bo is e ret ur ne d ho m e st il l na ke d a n d d e l u si on al

. He co nt in ue d to cl ai m he was

God

, de m an de d th a t h i s m ot he r wor sh ip hi m , an d he ld he r he ad do wn to th e flo or

. Eve nt ua ll y , De Bo is e he ad ed to th e ba ck of th e ho m e, an d hi s m ot he r le ft t he ho us e

an d cal le d 91 1 fro m a ne ig hb or ’s ph on e. The St

. Lou is Po li ce de pa rtment di sp at ch ed

of fic ers de sc rib in g th e cal l as a “ vi ol en t OBS,” m ean in g th at th e su bjec t was

em ot io na ll y d i s tu rb ed

, act ed vi ol en tl y , or us ed ph y si cal fo rce ag ai ns t pe op le or

pr op ert y

.

App el la nt s br ou gh t ot he r cl ai m s ag ai ns t th e App el le es th at were di sm is se d 1

vo lu nt ari ly.

The Hon or ab le Te r ry I. Ald erm an , Uni te d St at es Mag is tra te Ju dg e fo r th e 2

East ern Dis tri ct of M is so ur i, t o wh om th e cas e was refe rred for fin al di sp os it io n b y

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).

-2

-O f

fic er Arth ur W il li am s arri ve d on th e sc en e fir st

, an d De Bo is e’s m o t h e r

im m ed ia te ly in fo rm ed hi m of he r so n’s be ha vi or an d ph y si cal ag gr es si on to ward he r. 3

Offi cer W il li am s hea rd a n oi se co m in g fr om th e h ou se an d t he n o bs erv ed De Bo is e

ex it in g th e ho m e na ke d an d cl ai m in g to be God

. De Bo is e su dd en l y r e -en te red th e

ho us e, te ari ng do wn th e sc reen do or up on hi s en try. Add it io na l of fic ers were cal le d

to th e sc en e al on g wi th an am bu la nc e u ni t.

W hi le De Bo is e was st il l in th e ho m e, fiv e m or e of fic ers arri ve d on th e sc en e:

Offi cers Jo se ph Perc ic h, Bret Liv el y , Mi ke Kaem m erer , Ja co b Mae ch li ng , an d Ch ris

Mo ne y

. De Bo is e’s m ot he r in fo rm ed th e of fic ers th at sh e ha d a fir earm in th e ho us e

an d th at De Bo is e was s c hi zo ph ren ic

. Offi cer Perc ic h he ard ex tre m el y lo ud no is es

co m in g fro m th e ho m e, in cl ud in g sc ream in g, gl as s br eak in g, an d he av y fu r n i t u r e

be in g th ro wn. De Bo is e th en ex it ed th e ho us e st il l na ke d an d refe rri ng to hi m se lf as

God

. Offi cer Perc ic h to ok co m m an d of th e sc en e an d ai m ed hi s ta se r gu n at De Bo is e

as he ex it ed th e ho m e. O f fic er Mae ch li ng in st ru ct ed De Bo is e to walk ou t on th e

gr as s an d li e face do wn on th e gr ou nd

. De Bo is e co m pl ie d. Offi cer Perc ic h ho ls te red

hi s ta se r an d be g a n t o a pp ro ach De Bo is e to ha nd cu ff hi m

. De Bo is e im m ed ia te ly
jum pe d to hi s feet

, cl en ch in g hi s fis t, an d gl ari ng in Offi cer Perc i c h ’s di rect io n.

Offi cer Mae ch li ng co nt in ue d to in st ru ct De Bo is e to li e on th e gr as s, bu t De Bo is e di d

no t co m pl y

. Bel ie vi ng t h at De Bo is e po se d a th reat to th e of fic ers , Of fic er Perc ic h

in st ru ct ed De Bo is e se ve ral ti m es to li e do wn. W h e n De Bo is e refu se d, Offi cer

Perc ic h y el le d ou t “ ta se r, ta se r, ta se r” and fir ed hi s Taser Mo de l X-2 6 ECD in ba rb

m od e. The da rts pe ne tra te d De Bo is e’s ch es t an d th e ta se r de li ve red a f iv e-s eco nd

el ect ric al sh oc k. De Bo is e im m ed ia te ly fel l to th e gr ou nd on hi s ba ck wit h hi s arm s

an d fi st s cl en ch ed to hi s ch es t.

W hi le th e pa rti es di sp ut e whe th er De Bo is e’s m ot he r in fo rm ed the of fi ce rs th at 3

he r so n ha d tri ed to ki ll he r, it is un di sp ut ed th e of fic ers were in fo rm ed De Bo is e ha d

te rri fie d h is m ot he r an d h el d h is m ot he r’s he ad to th e fl oo r.

-3

-W he n an X-2 6 Tase r tri gg er is pu ll ed

, two da rts wit h wire s at ta ch ed are

de pl o ye d t o ward th e ta rg et

. Onc e th e da rts m ak e co nt act

, an el ect ric al ci rcu it is

co m pl et ed an d th e de vi ce au to m at i c a l ly cy cl es fiv e se co nd s of el ect ric al cu rren t,

im m ob il iz in g t he su bjec t. J .A. 44 0.

Afte r th e fir st ta se r di sc ha rg e, De Bo is e co nt in ue d to st ru gg le an d ig no re th e

of fic ers ’ de m an ds to rem ai n on th e gr ou nd

, an d Offi cer Perc ic h fo ll owe d wi t h a

se co nd fiv e-s eco nd cy cl e. Afte r th e fir st two cy cl es , Offi cer Perc ic h di d no t be li ev e 4

th e of fic ers co ul d sa fel y ha nd cu ff De Bo is e du e to th e po si ti on of hi s ha nd s an d ta se r

wire s ca rry in g th e el ect ric al ch arg e. De Bo is e st oo d u p a ga in de sp it e th e d em an ds

,

an d Offi cer Perc ic h ap pl ie d a th ird cy cl e, cau si ng De Bo is e to fal l to th e gr ou nd face

do wn. Offi cers Perc ic h an d Mo ne y ap pr oa ch ed to ha nd cu ff De Bo is e whe n De Bo is e

ro se to hi s kn ees an d swu ng hi s arm s ar ou nd . Office r Perc ic h t he n a pp li ed a fo ur th

ta se r cy cl e an d De Bo is e fel l to th e gr ou nd wit h th e wire s ta ng le d aro un d hi s le gs

. De

Bo is e at te m

pt ed to ris e ag ai n, an d Offi cer Perc ic h d e l i v e r e d two m or e ta se r cy cl es , th e la st of whi ch ap pe ared to be in effe ct iv e. De Bo is e aro se to hi s feet an d walk ed

to ward th e of

fic ers , an d Offi cer Liv el y fir ed hi s ta se r, su bjec ti ng De Bo is e to an ot he r

fiv e-s eco nd cy cl e. De Bo is e fel l to th e gr ou nd bu t r os e to hi s feet ag ai n, th is ti m e

as su m in g a st an ce as if h e were g et ti ng read y to ch arg e o r at te m

pt to run

.

Offi cer Liv el y de li ve red an ot he r ta se r cy cl e, aft er whi ch Offi cers Perc ic h an d

Mo ne y at te m

pt ed to ha nd cu ff De Bo is e. De Bo is e ki ck ed at th e of fic ers , an d Offi cer

Liv el y to ok th e cart rid ge ou t of hi s ta se r an d ap pl ie d th e ta se r on De B o i s e ’s l eg

twi ce, t hi s t im e in dri ve st un m od e. Offi cers Perc ic h and Mo ne y were t he n a bl e to 5

Im po rta nt ly, App el la nt s do no t di sp ut e th e reas on ab le ne ss of th e in it ia l two 4

ta si ng s.

De p l o yi n g th e ta se r in dr iv e st un m od e m ean s th at an of fic er rem ov es th e 5

cart rid ge fro m th e ta se r an d ap pl ie s th e ta se r so as to m ak e di rect co nt act wit h th e

su bjec t’s bo dy. W he n th e ta se r is in dr iv e st un m od e, it on ly cau se s di sc om fo rt and

-4

-ho ld De Bo is e’s ar ms a n d sh ou ld ers to th e gr ou nd whi le th e pa ram ed ic an d EMT

in jecte d De Bo is e wit h a s e d a t i v e

. W hi le be in g tra ns ferr ed to a gu rn ey , De Bo is e

wen t in to card ia c arre st

. Att em pt s to rev iv e De Bo is e were un su cces sf ul

, an d he was

pr on ou nc ed de ad up on hi s ar riv al at t he ho sp it al

.

App el la nt s fil ed su it

, al le gi ng ex ces si ve fo rce ag ai ns t Offi cers Li v el y an d

Perc ic h un de r 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 an d vi ol at io ns of th e ADA ag ai ns t St

. Lou is Co un ty.

Offi cers Perc ic h an d Liv el y m ov ed fo r su m m a r y ju d g m en t on th e ex ces si ve -fo rce

cl ai m ba se d on qu al ifi ed im m un it y

. St

. Lou is Co un ty a l s o mo v e d fo r su m m ary jud gm en t on th e ADA vi ol at io n cl ai m

. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d th e of fic ers ’ m ot io n,

fin di ng th e us e of fo rce ob jecti ve ly reas on ab le in li gh t of th e fact t h a t D e B o i se

rep eat ed ly fai le d to co m

pl y wit h th e of

fic ers ’ co m

m an ds to su bm it an d co nt in ue d to

act iv el y res is t arre st

. The co ur t fo un d it un d i s p u te d th at De Bo is e co nt in ue d to ge t

up de sp i t e t h e of

fic ers ’ in st ru ct io ns to li e do wn, walk ed to ward th e of fic ers , an d

ki ck ed an d fla il ed hi s arm s whe n th e of fic ers at te m

pt ed to a r r e s t h i m. The co ur t

fu rth er de t e r mi n e d th at ev en if th e of fic ers ’ act io ns am ou nt ed to ex ces si ve fo rce in

vi ol at io n De Bo is e’s Fo ur th Am en dm en t rig ht s, th e la w at th e ti m e of th e in ci d e n t

wou ld no t ha ve pl aced a reas on ab le of fic er on no ti ce th at m

ul ti pl e ta si ng s un de r th e

ci rcu m st an ces vi ol at ed a cl earl y est ab li sh ed rig ht

.

The di st ric t co ur t al so gr an te d St

. Lo ui s Co un ty’ s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, fin di ng th at no vi ol at io n of th e A D A oc cu rred be cau se th e of fic ers were

face d wit h un ex pe ct ed an d ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces to whi ch no reas on ab le

acco m m od at io ns co ul d be m ad e un ti l aft er th e sc en e was sa fel y se cu red

. Thi s ap pe al

fo ll owe d.

do es no t i nc ap aci ta te th e su bjec t.

-5

-II.

“ Q u a l i f i e d im m un it y sh ie ld s go ve rn m en t of fic ia ls fro m li ab il it y in a § 19 83

act io n un le ss th e of

fic ia l’s co nd uc t v i o l 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 own .” 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 ). W e rev ie w a di st ric t co ur t’s or de r

gr an ti ng su m

m ary jud gm en t de no vo , v ie win g th e fact s i n a li gh t m os t fav or ab le to

th e no nm ov in g pa rty an d gi v i n g th e no nm ov in g pa rty th e be ne fit of al l reas on ab le

in fere nc es

. Carp en te r v. Gag e, 68 6 F.3d 64 4, 64 8 (8t h Cir. 20 12 ), cert

. de ni ed

, 13 3

S. Ct . 95 5 (2 01 3)

.

To de te rm in e th e qu es ti on of qu al ifi ed im m un it y , we en ga ge in th e fo ll owi ng

two -p art in qu iry: “ (1 ) whe th er t he fact s s ho wn b y th e p la in ti ff m ak e o ut a vi ol at io n

of a co ns ti tu ti on al or st at ut or y rig ht

, an 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 al le ge d m is co nd uc t.” Bro wn, 57 4 F.3 d at 49 6. Co ur ts

ha ve di sc ret io n to de ci de whi ch pa rt of th e in qu iry to ad dr es s fir st

. P e a r s on v.

Cal la ha n, 55 5 U.S. 2 23 , 2 36 (2 00 9)

. Here, we be gi n wit h se co nd in qu iry. Tho ug h

th e ou tc om e of th is en co un te r was tra gi c, an d ev en if th e reas on ab le ne ss of th e

of fic ers ’ act io ns was qu es ti on ab le

, App el la nt s can no t de feat th e of fic ers ’ de fen se of

qu al ifi ed im m

un it y un le ss th ey are ab le to sh ow th at a reas on ab le of fic er wou ld ha ve

be en on no ti ce t ha t t he off ic ers ’ co nd uc t v io la te d a cle arl y est ab li sh ed rig ht

.

“ W he n de te rm in in g whe th er an act io n was a cl earl y es ta bl is he d co ns ti tu ti on al

vi ol at io n, we lo ok to th e st at e of th e la w at th e ti m e of th e in ci de nt ,” 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 ); th e rel ev an t ti m e he re be in g Ju ly 8,

20 08

. The pe rti ne nt in qu iry is “ ‘w he th er it wou ld be cl ear to a 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 .’ ” Id

. at 36 7 (q uo ti ng Sau ci er

v. Katz

, 53 3 U.S. 19 4, 20 2 (2 00 1) ). Part ic ul arl y , th e co nt ou rs of De Bo is e’s rig ht to

be free fro m ex ces si ve fo rce m us t be so su ffi ci en t l y c l e a r th at a reas on ab le of fic er

-6

-wou ld kn ow th at th e m ul ti pl e ta si ng s un de r th e ci rcu m st an ces were a vi ol at io n of th at rig ht . See Ro be rts v. Ci ty of Om ah a, 72 3 F .3d 96 6, 9 72 (8t h C ir. 2 01 3)

.

Alt ho ug h we ha ve de te rm in ed th at no n- vi ol en t, no n- fle ei ng su bjec ts ha ve a

cl earl y es ta bl is he d rig ht to be free fro m th e us e of ta se rs , se e Bro wn, 57 4 F.3 d at 49 9-

50 0, we ha ve y et to de te rm in e whe th er a vi ol en t su bjec t, act in g ag gr es si ve ly to ward

of fic ers , ha s a cl earl y es ta bl is he d rig ht to be free fro m m ul ti pl e ta si ng s. See Cl ark v.

W are, 87 3 F. Su pp

. 2d 11 17

, 11 23 (E.D. Mo

. 20 12 ) (h ol di ng th at th e co ur t co ul d no t

de te rm in e as a m at te r o f l a w t h a t th e rep eat ed us e of a ta se r on a su bjec t th at was ph y si cal ly res is ti ng th e po l i c e vi ol at ed a cl earl y es ta bl is he d rig ht as of Nov em be r

20 09 ). In de ed

, in 20 08

, cas e la w rel at ed to th e us e of ta se rs was st il l de ve lo pi ng

. See

McKe nn ey v. Harri so n, 63 5 F. 3d 35 4, 36 1- 62 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (Mu rp hy, J

.

c o n cu rri ng ). And

, App el la nt s po in t to no pr ev io us cas e th at co ul d be sa id to ha ve

cl earl y es ta bl is he d th e un co ns ti tu ti on al it y of th e of fic ers ’ act io ns he re. Acco rd in gl y , th e st at e of th e la w wou ld no t ha ve pl aced “ an of fic er on no ti ce th at he m

us t li m it th e

us e of hi s ta se r in cert ai n ci rcu m st an ces , ev en th ou gh th e su bjec t co nt in ue s to st ru gg le

an d re si st .” Cla rk , 87 3 F . Sup p. 2 d a t 1 12 2.

App el la nt s are co rrec t th at th e pa rti cu la r act io n in qu es ti on ne ed no t ha ve be en

pr ev io us ly he ld un la wfu l in or de r fo r a co ur t to de te rm in e th at a go ve rn m en t of fic ia l

ha s in de ed vi ol at ed a cl earl y es ta bl is he d rig ht

. See Hop e v. Pel zer, 53 6 U.S. 73 0, 74 1
(2 00 2) (“ [A] ge ne ral 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 , ev en 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.” (s eco nd al te rat i o n i n

or ig in al ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) ). In su pp or t o f t he ir cl ai m , Ap pe ll an ts

rel y on O l i v e r v

. Fi or in o, 58 6 F.3 d 89 8 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 09 ). In Oli ve r, th e Elev en th

Ci rcu it co nc lu de d th at th e m u l t i p l e ta si ng s of a m en ta ll y il l su bjec t was ex ces si ve

fo rce an d vi ol at ed th e su bjec t’s cl earl y es ta bl is he d rig ht

. 58 6 F.3 d at 90 8. Alt ho ug h

th e co ur t ack no wle d g e d t h at th ere was no pr io r de ci si on in whi ch a co ur t ha d

de te rm in ed su ch act s vi ol at ed a cl ear l y es ta bl is he d rig ht

, th e co ur t, no ne th el es s,

-7

-reas on ed th e r i g h t w a s cl earl y es ta bl is he d be cau se th e su bjec t was ta se d m ul ti pl e

ti m es wit ho ut warn in g, he was no t su sp ect ed of an y cri m e, di d no t act be ll ig eren t or

ag gr es si ve ly, an d ha d co m pl ie d wit h m os t of th e of

fic ers ’ co m

m an ds

. Id

. at 90 7- 08

. The co ur t de te rm in ed

, ba se d on th e fact s al on e, no reas on ab le o f fic er wou ld ha ve

be li ev ed th at th e rep eat ed ta si ng s were co ns ti tu ti on al ly pe rm is si bl e un de r th e

ci rcu m st an ces . Id. at 90 8.

Alt ho ug h Oli ve r an d th e cas e be fo re us bo th in vo lv e th e ta s i n g of an

em ot i o n a l ly di st ur be d in di vi du al

, th e fact s of th e two cas es are no t su ffi ci en tl y

al ig ne d. Si m i l a r t o O l i ve r, De Bo is e su ffer ed fro m a m en ta l il ln es s of whi ch th e

of fic ers were aware

. Howev er, un li ke in Oli ve r, th e of fic ers in th is cas e ob se rv ed De

Bo is e ag gr es si ve ly ap pr oa ch in g on e of th e of fic ers , hi s co nt in ue d no nc om pl ia nc e

wi t h t h e of

fic ers ’ in st ru ct io ns to li e on th e gr ou nd

, an d hi s vi ol en t an d ag gr es si ve

be ha vi or , whi c h in cl ud ed ki ck in g an d swi ng in g hi s arm s at th e of fic ers on ce th ey

ap pr oa ch ed to su bd ue hi m

. The se im po rta nt di st in ct io ns le ad us to co nc lu de th at no

reas on ab le of

fi ce r, obse rv ing D e Bo ise ’ s beha vi or , wou ld ha ve un de rs to od th e act io ns

t a ke n to be so di sp ro po rti on at e an d un ne ces sa ry as to am ou nt to a vi ol at io n o f D e

Bo is e’s rig ht s. Acco rd in gl y , Oli ve r do es no t su pp or t th e App el la nt s’ arg um en t th at

th e ri gh t i n t hi s ca se was c le arl y est ab li sh ed

. 6

The di ss en t ci te s Hick ey v. Ree de r, 12 F.3 d 75 4 (8 th Ci r. 19 93 ) to su pp or t it s 6

co nt en ti on th at it was u n r e as on ab le fo r th e of fic ers , in Ju ly 20 08

, to ha ve be li ev ed

th ei r act io ns were un la wfu l. W e fin d th is cas e an d t h e d is se nt ’s ap pl ic at io n of it

un pe rs ua si ve fo r t h ree reas on s. Fi rs t, th e qu es ti on be fo re us is whe th er th e

a p p l i c at io n of m

ul ti pl e ta si ng s on a su bjec t act iv el y res is ti ng arre st in th e ci rcu m st an ces face d by th e of fic ers am ou nt s to a cl ear vi ol at io n of hi s co ns ti tu ti on al

r i gh ts

, no t whe th er th e in it ia l us e of a ta se r/s tu n gu n on a no nv io le nt in mat e t o

en fo rce a ho us ek eep in g or de r is un co ns ti t u ti on al

. See Hick ey , 12 F.3 d at 75 8- 59 (d et erm in in g whe th er th e type of fo rce us ed was an un ne cess ary an d wan to n in fli ct io n of pa in in vi ol at io n of th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t). Here, th e App el la nt s do no t di sp ut e th e in it ia l ta se r ap pl ic at io n bu t ta ke is su e wit h t h e s ub se qu en t ta se r sh oc ks

-8

-App el la nt s al so cl ai m th at th e of fic ers ’ tra in in g pl aced th em on no ti ce th at th ei r

act io ns vi ol at ed a cl earl y es ta bl is he d rig ht

. W e di s a g r e e

. C ert ai nl y , th e of fic ers

tra in in g m an ua l in st ru ct ed th at “ [Em ot io na ll y di st ur be d pe rs on s]

. . . m ay no t co m pl y

wit h ve rb al co m

m an ds fo ll owi ng th e TASER cy cl e” an d were in fo rm ed th at “ [e]ach

cy cl e sh ou ld be us ed as a ‘w in do w of op po rtu ni ty’ to at te m pt to es ta bl is h co nt ro l/ cu ff

whi le t h e s ub

ject is affe ct ed by th e TASER cy cl e.” Howev er, th e tra in in g m an ua l

fu rth er in st ru ct ed of

fic ers to “ [m ]ove in an d co nt ro l th e su bjec t whi le TASER de vi ce

i s cy cl in g an d th e su bjec t is in cap aci ta te d whe n it is reas on ab ly sa fe to do s o

. ”

Offi cer Perc ic h te st ifi ed th at

, du e to t he pl acement of De Bo is e’s ha nd s an d th e

p l a cem en t of th e ta se r wire s, it was no t sa fe to ha nd cu ff De Bo is e aft er th e i n i t i a l

ta si ng s. W e are no t pe rs ua de d t h a t a r eas on ab le of fic er, ha vi ng th e sa m e tra in in g,

ad m in is te red to De Bo is e. App el la nt s’ Br. 21 -2 2. Seco nd

, in Hick ey , we ga ve si gn ifi can t weig ht to th e fact th at th e in m at e was no nv io le nt an d ta se d du e to hi s fai lu re to co m

pl y wit h a ho us ek eep in g or de r to swe ep hi s c e l l

. H i ck ey , 12 F.3 d at
75 8- 59

. Here, of

fic ers ob se rv ed De Bo is e’s irr at io na l be ha vi or an d rep eat ed act s of

ag gr es si on to ward s th e of fic ers , act io ns ab se nt fr o m t he ci rcu m st an ces in Hick ey

. Fi na ll y , in Hick ey , th e fact th at th e of fic ers fai le d to “ ta ke ad va nt ag e of [th e in m at e’s]
in cap aci ta ti on to ne ut ral iz e an y pe rcei ve d t h e a t t o th ei r sa fet y ” was rel ev an t to th e of fic er’s su bjec ti ve st at e of m in d in us in g th e st un gu n. Id

. at 75 7. Tha t is

, we no te d

th at th e la ck of an y at te m

pt to “ rem ov e, is ol at e, or res tra in ” th e in m at e de m on st rat ed

th at th e m ot iv e in us in g t he st un gu n was no t bas ed on an y fear for th e sa fet y

of t he
of fic ers

. Id

. at 75 7- 58

. Here, th e m ot iv e fo r us in g th e ta se r is no t at is su e. See
Grah am v. Co nn or , 49 0 U.S. 38 6, 39 7- 98 (1 98 9) (ack n o w l e d g i ng th e ab se nc e of a

su bjec ti ve st at e of m in d in qu iry un de r Fo ur th Am en dm en t cl a i ms )

. Mo reo ve r th e of fic ers , a fte r ha vi ng m ad e a few at te m pt s, d id su cces sf

ul ly s ub du e De Bo is e whe n it was sa fe to do s o , t h ou gh we reco gn iz e th at of fic ers m ay no t al way s ha ve th e

op po rtu ni ty to su bd ue a su bjec t ha nd s- on , pa rti cu la rly whe n su ch act io n po se s a ris k

to th e sa fet y of th e of

fic ers on th e sc en e an d whe n sp li t-s eco nd de ci si on s m us t be

m ad e. See McKe nn ey v. H a r r i s o n , 6 3 5 F.3 d 35 4, 36 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ); se e al so Jo hn so n v. Carr ol l, 65 8 F.3 d 81 9, 82 6 (8 th C ir. 20 11 ) (“ [P]ol ic e of fic ers are of

te n fo rced to m ak e sp li t-s eco nd jud gm en ts ab ou t th e am ou nt of fo rce th at is ne ces sa ry in

a p art ic ul ar s it ua ti on .”).

-9

-wou ld be on no ti ce th at us in g hi s di sc ret io n to fo rg o th e “ win do w of op po rtu ni ty” du e

to th e un sa fe co nd it io ns vi ol at ed th e su bjec t’s cl earl y es t a bl is he d rig ht

. W e,

th eref or e, ho ld th at ev en if Offi cers Perc ic h’s an d Liv el y ’s rep eat ed ta si n g s o f De

Bo is e am ou nt ed to ex ces si ve fo rce in vi ol at io n of De Bo is e’s Fo ur th Am en dm en t rig ht s, s uc h ri gh ts were n ot cle arl y est ab li sh ed at t he ti m e o f th e in ci de nt

.

III.

Nex t, th e App el la nt s arg ue th at be cau se Offi cers Perc ic h an d Mae ch li ng ha d

rece iv ed Cri si s In te rv en ti on Team tra in in g al on g wit h th e Tase r tra in in g, th e of fic ers ’

fai lu re to ut il iz e su ch tra in in g de ni ed De Bo is e of reas on ab le acco m m od at io ns in

v io la ti on of th e ADA. The ADA pr ov id es th at “ no qu al ifi ed in di vi du al wit h a

di sa bi li ty sh al l, by reas on of su ch di sa bi li ty

. . . be de ni ed th e be ne fit s of th e se rv ic es ,
pr og r am s, or act iv it ie s of a pu bl ic en ti ty, or be su bjec te d to di sc riminat io n by an y

su ch en ti ty.” 42 U.S.C. § 12 13 2. To pr ev ai l on an ADA cl ai m in th is c o n t e x t

, a pl ai nt iff m

us t dem on st rat e “ th at he is a q ua li fie d i nd iv id ua l wi th a di sa bi li ty de ni ed

pa rti ci pa ti on in

, or th e be ne fit s of

, th e se r v i c e s , pr og ram s, or act iv it ie s of a pu bl ic

en ti t y b e c a us e of hi s di sa bi li ty.” Gor m an v. Bart ch

, 15 2 F.3 d 90 7, 91 2 (8 th Ci r.

19 98 ). W e ha ve sa id th at in qu iry in to whe th er of fic ers reas on ab ly acco m

m od at ed th e

in di vi du al is “ hi gh ly fact -s pe ci fic an d va rie s de pe nd in g on th e ci rcu m st an ces of each

cas e, in cl ud in g th e ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces pr es en te d by cri m in al act iv it y an d sa fet y

co nc ern s” an d th at “ we wil l no t se co nd gu es s [an of fic er’s] jud gm en ts

, whe re

. . . an

of fic er is pr es en te d wit h ex ig en t or un ex pe ct ed ci r cu m st an ces .” Bah l v. Cn ty. of

Ram se y , 69 5 F.3 d 77 8, 78 4- 85 ( 8 t h C ir. 20 12 ); se e al so Tuc ke r v. Ten ne ss ee, 53 9

F.3 d 52 6, 53 6 (6 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (“ [W] e rel y on an d ex pe ct la w en fo rcem en t of fic ers to

res po nd flu id ly to ch an gi ng si tu at io ns an d in di vi du al s th ey en co un te r. Im po si n g a

st rin ge nt req ui rem en t un de r th e ADA is in co ns is te nt wit h th at e x p e c ta ti on , an d

im pe de s th ei r ab il it y to pe rfo rm th ei r du ti es .”); Hain ze v. Ri ch ard s, 20 7 F.3 d 79 5, 80 1
(5 th Ci r. 20 00 ) (“ Tit le II do es no t ap pl y to an of fic er’s on -th e-s tre et res po ns es to

-1 0-rep or te d di st ur ba nc es or ot he r si m il ar in ci de nt s, whe th er or no t th os e cal ls in vo lv e

su bjec ts wit h m en ta l di sa bi li ti es , pr io r to th e of fic er’s se cu rin g th e sc en e an d en su rin g

th at th ere i s n o t hr eat to hu m an li fe.”)

.

Im po rta nt he re, th e of

fic ers rece iv ed in fo rm at io n th at De Bo is e ha d as sa ul te d

hi s m ot he r an d ob se rv ed De Bo is e’s ag gr es si ve an d irr at io na l be ha vi or an d hi s

co nt in ue d no n- co m

pl ia nc e wit h th ei r de m an ds

. D u e t o t he un ex pe ct ed an d rap id ly

ev ol vi ng ci rcu m st an ces , th e of fic ers were no t req ui red “ to he si ta te to co ns id er ot he r

po ss ib le act io ns in th e co ur se of m ak in g s uc h s pl it -s eco nd de ci si on s.” Hai nz e, 20 7

F.3 d at 80 1- 02

. Mo reo ve r, th e “ us e of fo rce” on De Bo is e was “ no t by reas on of [De

Bo is e’s] di sa bi li ty, bu t be cau se of [h is ] ob jecti ve ly ve rif

ia bl e m is co nd uc t.” Bat es ex

rel

. Jo hn s v. Ch es te rfi el d Cn ty., Va., 21 6 F.3 d 36 7, 37 3 (4 th Ci r. 20 00 ). Acco rd in gl y , th e fac ts be fo re u s d o n ot co nt em pl at e an y vi ol at io n o f th e ADA.

IV.

Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm th e di st ric t cou rt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t to th e

in di vi du al off

ic ers an d S t. Lo ui s C ou nt y

.

BYE, Cir cu it Ju dg e, di ss en ti ng

.

I di sa gr ee th e of

fic ers are en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y fo r th e ta si ng de at h of

De Bo is e. I n s t ead

, I be li ev e a jury sh ou ld de te rm in e whe th er th e of fic ers vi ol at ed

De Bo is e’s Fo ur th Am en dm en t r i g ht to be free fro m ex ces si ve fo rce by co nt in ui ng

to ta se De Bo is e wit ho ut at te m pt in g to ha nd cu ff hi m

. I th eref or e res pe ct fu ll y di ss en t

fro m Part II o f th e d eci si on affi rm in g t he di st ric t co ur t.

The co ur t an al y zes on ly th e se co nd pr on g of the qu al ifi ed im m un it y an al y si s.

See Fo ur te v. Fau lk ne r Cn ty., Ark ., 7 46 F.3 d 38 4, 38 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (n ot in g two

-

-1 1-pa rt te st fo r qu al ifi ed im m un it y ). The co ur t co nc l u de s th e st at e of th e la w in 20 08

wou ld no t ha ve pl aced an of fic er on no ti ce he m

us t li m it th e us e of hi s ta se r. I be li ev e

th e la w pl aced an of

fic er on no t i c e h e co ul d no t co nt in uo us ly ta se a su sp ect whe n

sa fer al te rn at iv es were reas o n a b ly av ai la bl e to co ns tra in De Bo is e in or de r to

effe ct ua te an arre st

.

Fi rs t, co ns tru in g th e fact s in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to De Bo is e, I wou ld fin d

a su ffi ci en t sh owi ng ha s be en m ad e to pr es en t to a jury whe th er th e of fic ers vi ol at ed

De Bo is e’s co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s by co nt in ui ng to ta se hi m un ti l hi s ev en t ua l de at h.

The us e of a ta se r is no t un li m it ed in sc op e whe n de al in g wit h a s u sp ect

, ev en on e

who is act iv el y r e s i st in g. De Bo is e di so be y ed of fic ers ’ or de rs an d m ad e so m e

th reat en in g m ov es

. Howev er, De Bo is e was no t carr y in g a vi si bl e or co nc eal ed

weap on , di d no t m ak e ad va nc es at th e of fic ers , an d was na ke d. A ju r y co ul d

co nc lu de

, wit h si x arm ed of fic ers at th e sc en e, it was an un reas on ab le us e of fo rce to

co nt in uo us ly ta se De Bo is e rat he r th an ha nd cu ff hi m du rin g th e ti m e pe rio d De Bo is e

was de bi li ta te d du rin g a n d aft er each ta se

. Part ic ul arl y be cau se De Bo is e di d no t

h a ve sh od feet or an y ot he r weap on , a jury co ul d co nc lu de th e of fic ers w e r e

un reas on ab le to no t m ak e fu rth er effo rt to ha nd cu ff De Bo is e , ev en if he were

swi ng in g h is arm s o r ki ck in g h is leg s.

Seco nd

, I wou ld fin d th e of fic ers were pu t on no ti ce in 20 08 th at co nt in uo us ly

ta si ng a su sp ect un ti l hi s de at h was un la wfu l. To de te rm in e wh e t he r an act io n was

a cl earl y es ta bl is he d co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n, we lo ok to th e st at e of th e la w at th e

ti m e of th e in ci de nt

, an d th e co rre ct in qu iry is whe th er it is cl ear to a reas on ab le

of fic er th at hi s co nd uc t was un la wfu l. Sh ek le to n v. Eich en be rg er, 67 7 F.3 d 36 1, 36 6-

67 (8 th C i r

. 2 0 1 2 ). The te st do es no t req ui re “ th ere be a cas e wit h m at eri al ly or

fu nd am en ta ll y si m il ar fact s,” 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 ), bu t rat he r m erel y whe th er “ ‘it wou ld be cl ear to a reas on ab le of fic er th at

-1 2-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 .’ ” Id

. ( q u o t i n g S au ci er v.

Katz , 53 3 U.S. 1 94 , 20 2 (2 00 1) ).

“ The rig ht to be free fro m ex ces si ve fo rce in th e co nt ex t of an arre st is cl earl y

es ta bl is he d un de r th e Fo urth A m en dm en t’ s pr ohi bit ion ag ai ns t un reas on ab le se arch es

an d se iz u r e s

. ” Bro wn, 57 4 F.3 d at 49 9. A reas on ab le of fic er wou ld kn ow on ly

reas on ab le f

o r c e c a n b e us ed to effe ct an arre st

. Alt ho ug h ta si ng a su sp ect can be

reas on ab le fo rce in cert ai n ci rcu m st an ces , ta si ng ris es to a “ si gn ifi can t le ve l of fo rce.”

McKe nn ey v. Harri so n, 63 5 F.3 d 35 4, 36 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (Mu rp hy, J., co nc ur rin g)

. Ev e n wit ho ut a cas e de ci de d on m at eri al ly or fu nd am en ta ll y si m il ar fact s, a

reas on ab le of

fic er in 20 08 wou ld ha ve kn own “ th e us e of ta se rs req ui r e s s u ffi ci en t jus ti fic at io n fo r th ei r us e to be reas on ab le .” Id

. The re are, an d lo ng ha ve be en , li m it s

on off ic ers ta si ng su sp ect s. In Hick ey v. Ree de r, 12 F.3 d 75 4, 75 7 (8 th Ci r. 19 93 ),

we fo un d an Eig ht h Am en dm en t vi ol at io n whe re a jail or ap pl ie d a st un gu n, an d th ere

were s i x or se ve n of

fic ers pr es en t, bu t th e of

fic ers fai le d to “ ta ke ad va nt ag e of [th e

in m at e’s] in cap aci ta ti on to ne ut ral iz e an y pe rcei ve d th reat to th ei r sa fet y .” W e al so

no te d, as rel ev an t to th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t an al y si s, th e of fic ers fai le d to “ rem ov e,

is o l a t e , o r r e s tra in ” th e in m at e. Id

. In th is cas e, th e of fic ers were on no ti ce th ey

sh ou ld ha ve at te m

pt ed to ha nd cu ff De Bo is e as a sa fer al te rn at iv e to ta si ng De Bo is e

wit h fif ty s eco nd s of el ect ric al sh oc k in jus t ov er tw o minu te s of ti m e. It wou ld be

cl ear to a reas on ab le of

fic er th at fai li ng to se iz e De Bo is e wit h reas on ab le fo rce was

un la wfu l.

Bec au se th e of

fic ers ’ act io ns are no t pr ot ect ed by qu al ifi ed im m un it y , I wou ld

rem an d th is cas e fo r tri al whe re a jury can de te rm in e whe th er it was reas on ab le th e

of fic ers co nt in ue d to ta se De Bo is e un ti l hi s de at h an d se em in gl y wit ho ut ta ki ng th e

av ai la bl e o pp or tu ni ti es to ha nd cu ff an d re st rai n De B oi se

.

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

-1 3-