T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptundert he * doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a and c ol l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, h o w e v e r, fo r its p e rsu a siv e v a lu e c o n sis ten t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C i r . R . 32. 1. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### F e b r u ary12,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT
R I C H A R D G I A N N E T T I , as per s onal rep rese n tat ive o f th e E stat e o f M ary G i annett i , dece as ed,

P lain tiff-A p p e llan t/ C r os s - A ppel l ee, v. N os . 06- 6085, 06- 6094 ( W . D . O kl ahoma) C I T Y O F ST I L L W A T E R , a muni ci pal corpor at i on and/ orpol i t i cal s u b d i v i s i o n ; NO RM AN M c NI CK LE, i ndi vi dual l yand i n hi s offi ci al capa ci t yas C hi ef of

Pol i ce forC i t yof S t i l l wa t e r ; LI NDELL M I LL ER, S COTT W HI TL EY, a n d BRUCE M C D O U G A L , ind iv id u a llya n d in t h e i ro ffi c i a l c a p a c i t y,

D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees/ C ross -A pp el l ants . ( D. C. No . 0 4 - CV - 9 2 6 - BA )

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T *T he H on orabl e Jul i e A . R ob i nson , U . S . D i stri ctJudg e, D i stri ctof K ansas, ** s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. T he off

i cer s di d notbr i ng a s um m aryj udgm entm ot i on on t he s t at e l aw 1 claim s, o v er w h ich th e d istri ct co u rtex erc ised su p p lem en tal juri sd ict ion . B efo re the d istri ct co u rt , the p arti es stipu lat ed to a d ism issal of the s tat e law claim s. In t h i s a p p e a l , M r . Gi a n n e t t i d o e s n o tp r e s e r v e t h e fa i l u r e t o t r a i n c l a i m. -2- B efor e HENR Y and B RI S CO E , C i r cui tJ udges , and RO B I NS ON , D i s t r i ct J udge. **

T h is a p p e a l ste m s f

ro m th e tra g ic e v e n ts o f M a y1 , 2 0 0 3 , w h ich re su lted in M aryG i annett i ’ s unt i m el ydeath. M s . G i annett i di ed af t era s t ruggl e w i t h s ever al offi cer s i n t he C i t yof St i l l w at erm uni ci pal j ai l , w her e the off i cer s r es t r ai ned her a f ter th e ya rre ste d h e r fo r e lu d in g th e p o lice , a m isd e m e a n o r. T h e stru g g le ensued w hen she viol entl yrefused t o p ut on a j ai l j um psuit . M r. G i ann et t i , M s. G i annett i ’ s per s onal r epr es ent at i ve and a l s o herw i dow er , s ued the C i t yand the i nvol ved off

i cer s , al l egi ng s t at e l aw cl ai m s of negl i gence and fe der al cl ai m s of exce s s i ve for ce a nd i nadequa t e tr ai ni ng under28 U . S. C . § 1983. T he di s t r i ct 1 c o u rt g ra n ted su m m a ryju d g m e n t to th e d e fe n d a n ts, fin d in g th a t th e o ffice rs d id n o tu s e a n u n r e a s o n a b l e q u a n tu m o f fo r c e . F o rt h e r e a s o n s b e l o w, we a ffi r m. I . BA CK GR OUND A l t hough t he St i l l w at erm uni ci pal j ai l us ed audi o and vi deo r ecor di ng equ i pm ent t o record t he en cou nter , t he ev ents t hat unfo l ded i n thi s m at t er ar e l ess cl eart han opt i m al . T he audi ot ape i s of s uch poorqual i t ys o as t o be us el es s ; t heO ffi cerM i l l erand Lt . M cD ougal ar e ea ch C L E E T ( “C ounci l of Law 2 E n fo rc e m e n t E d u c a tio n a n d T ra in in g ” ) c e rtifie d o ffice rs, w ith a p p ro x im a tely 1, 300 hour s of tr ai ni ng as of M ay1, 2003. T hi s t r ai ni ng i ncl udes admi ni s t r at i on of pr operr es t r ai ntt echni ques and dea l i ng w i t h m ent al l yi l l per s ons . A pl t ’ s A pp. vol . I , at68 ( D efs ’ M ot . forSum m aryJ udgm ent ) . D efe ndantD et ent i on O ffi cer W hi t l eyhad appr oxi m at el y344 hour s of ce r t i fi ed tr ai ni ng. -3- v ideo h as a n im p o rt an t gap w h ere crit ical fa cts o cc u r. In a d d it ion , the c am era ’s angl e fa i l s t o por t r ayt he mostr el evantvi ew . A s s uch, w e ar e conf i ned t o t he o ffic e rs ’ c h a ra c te ri z a tio n s o f th e e v e n ts th a t o c c u rr e d . O n M a y1 , 2 0 0 3 a t 4 :4 5 a .m ., O ffice r L in d e ll M ill e r n o tice d M s. G ian n e tti d ri v in g s o u th b o u n d o n P e rk in s R o a d , U .S . H w y1 7 7 , w ith o u t u s in g h e r h e a d lig h ts . O ffi cer M i l l er engag ed h i s em ergencyov erhead li gh t s and foll ow ed M s. G i annett i , w ho di d nots t op. M s . G i annett i cont i nued atan exc es s i ve r at e of s peed t o herhom e, w i t houts i gnal i ng orheedi ng t r aff i c s i gns . O ffi cerM i l l er cal l ed forbackup, and O ffi cer s J eff D i l l on and Tom C om s t ock r es ponded t o t he cal l . M s . G i annett i pul l ed i nt o herdr i vew ay . H avi ng unhol s t er ed hi s w eapon, O ffic e r M ille r a p p ro a c h e d M s . G ia n n e tti, a n d a s k e d h e r t o k e e p h e r h a n d s u p . M s . G ia n n e tti r a is e d a n d lo w e re d h e r h a n d s , a n d b e g a n to ru m m a g e in h e r p u rs e . O ffice rs D ill o n a n d C o m sto c k a rriv e d a n d su rro u n d e d th e c a r. A fo u rth offi cer , L i eut enant R ober t B . M cD ougal , al s o arr i ved at t he s cene . L t . M cD ougal 2 w as appar ent l yfami l i arw i t h M s . G i annett i and herm ent al heal t h i s s ues . O ffi cer M i l l erhol s t er ed hi s w eapon w hen he w as convi nced thatM s . G i annett i w as unarm ed.-4-

M s. G ian n e tti , w h o w a s c lin ica llyo b e se a n d h a d b e e n d iag n o se d w ith bi pol ardi s or der , pr ocee ded t o l ock her s el f i n t he ca rand r efus ed t o exi t . She i ns i s t ed s he coul d notbe arr es t ed s i nce s he w as now atherhom e. She al s o s t at ed nons ens i cal l yt hats he had l i verand oni ons i n t he ca rand w as goi ng t o eatO ffi cer C om s t ock. O ffi cerC om s t ock al s o r ecogni zed M s . G i annett i fr om pr evi ous o ffic ia l in te ra c tio n s . M s . G i annett i eventual l yr el ent ed and e xi t ed the ca r . A ft era br i ef s t ruggl e, th e o ffic e rs h a n d c u ffe d h e r a n d p la c e d h e r u n d e r a rr e s t fo r e lu d in g th e p o lic e , a m i s demeanor . O ffi cerM i l l eres cor t ed M s . G i annett i , w hom he not i ced w as per s pi r i ng heavi l y , t o t he St i l l w at erC i t yJ ai l . A t5: 08 a. m . , D et ent i on O ffi cer S c o tt W h itle yto o k c u s to d yo f M s . G ia n n e tti a t th e ja il. D et ent i on O ffi cerW hi t l eyt ook M s . G i annett i t o t he j ai l booki ng ar ea a nd s eat ed heron a benc h. O ffi cerM i l l erw entt o t he contr ol r oom adj oi ni ng t he b o o k in g a re a a n d b e g a n p re p a rin g re p o rts p e rta in in g to M s. G ian n e tti ’s a rre st. L t. M c D o u g a l jo in e d O ffice r M ill e r th e re . O ffice r M ill e r a n d L t. M c D o u g a l co u ld e a s i l ys e e a n d h e a rwh a twa s g o i n g o n i n t h e b o o k i n g a r e a a n d s u r r o u n d i n g r o o ms fr om t hi s l ocat i on. D et ent i on O ffi cerW hi t l eyas ked M s . G i annett i fors om e gene r al i n fo r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g h e ri d e n t i t y, n e x to f k i n , e m e r g e n c y c o n t a c t s , a n d a n y m edi cal condi t i ons . H e as ked w hethers he had be en dr i nki ng, had t aken a ny drugs , orhad a ps y chi atr i c hi s t or y ; s he r epl i ed “no” t o eac h of thes e. A pl t ’ s A pp.-5-

vol . I , at261. D et ent i on O ffi cerW hi t l eyas ked heri f s he had a nys ui ci dal t endenc i es ; s he r epl i ed “no. ” Id . a t 2 6 1 -6 2 . W hen he a s ked M s . G i annett i about s p e c ific illn e s s e s , s h e in te rr u p te d a n d to ld h im th a t s h e to o k “ c h ill p ills ,” s p e c ific a lly D e p a k o te , a n d th a t s h e w a s a lle rg ic to p e n ic illin . Id. at262. A tone poi ntM s . G i annett i compl ai ned thatt he handc uffs w er e t oo t i ght . D et ent i on O ffi cerW hi t l eychec ked the cuffs , and found he rhands had good col or , and that t he handc uffs had s l i pped up herar m a l i t t l e. H e s t at ed thats he w as per s pi r i ng heavi l y , w hi ch he be l i eved w as cons i s t entw i t h s om eone w ho m i ghthave t aken m e th a m p h e ta m in e . D et ent i on O ffi cerW hi t l eyal s o not ed thatM s . G i annett i w as fi dget i ng du ri ng t he b oo king process. W hen he w as i nv entory i ng her bel on gings, s peci fi cal l yhercoi n pur s e, M s . G i annett i beca m e defens i ve. T her e w er e no drugs , pr es cr i pt i on orot herw i s e, i n t he pur s e. D et ent i on O ffi cerW hi t l eyw as cur i ous abouta s t r ange c ol or ed bot t l e of br eath dr ops , w hi ch l at ert es t ed negat i vel yforcontr aband. W hen he a s ked M s . G i annett i aboutt he bot t l e, s he in fo rm e d h im th a t h e r d a u g h te r h a d g iv e n h e r t h e b o ttle , a n d to le a v e it a lo n e . D et enti on O ffi cer W hit l eyt est i fi ed thatt his beh aviorsugg est ed to hi m t hat M s. G ia n n e tti m ig h t b e u n d e r t h e in flu e n c e o f a n ille g a l s u b s ta n c e . D et ent i on O ffi cerW hi t l eyal s o t es t i fi ed that , fors us pect s w ho ar e booked, stan d ard p o li cyd ir ec ts th at a su sp ec t cha n g e into a jum p su ito n lyif o fficers s us pectt hatt he det ai nee i s on drugs , hi di ng contr aband, orw ear i ng cl ot hi ng t hatW e not e thatt he St i l l w at erPol i ce D epart m ent ’ s vi deo r ecor di ng of the 3 i nci dents t ops j us ts hor t l yaft erD et ent i on O ffi cerW hi t l eyhear d t he comm ot i on and ent er ed the haz - m atr oom ( atappr oxi m at el y5: 33: 28 a. m . ) . T he eve nt s t hat t ook pl ace i n t he haz - m atr oom w er e appa r ent l yr ecor ded byan audi o- onl ydevi ce, t h e r e s u l t s o f

wh i c h a r e i n d e c i p h e r a b l e . Th e v i d e o r e c o r d i n g r e s u me s f r o m a d i ffe r e n tc a me r a p o s i t i o n a ta p p r o x i ma t e l y5 : 4 7 : 0 8 a . m. , wh e n t h e c a me r a fi l ms a n o ffic e r j u s t o u ts id e th e d o o r o f th e h a z -m a t r o o m lo o k in g in o n M s . G ia n n e tti. A l t hough s uch r ecor di ngs m i ghtbe us eful , t heypr ovi de l i t t l e i ns i ghti nt o w hat (c o n tin u e d ...) -6- th e o ffice rs d e e m d a n g e ro u s. H is te stim o n yin d ica tes h e su sp e c ted M s. G ian n e tti m i ght“be on drugs . ” Id. a t 3 0 1 . H e n o ted th a t d isp a tch h a d c a lled fo r a fe m a le offi cert o as s i s tw i t h t he pr oces s of m oni t or i ng M s . G i annett i ’ s change i nt o pr i s on g a rb . O S U P o lice D isp a tch e r T a m a ra S tu m b a u g h a rriv e d to a ss ist M s. G ian n e tti c h a n g e in th e b io -h a z a rd (“ h a z -m a t” ) r o o m , w h ic h a djo in e d th e b o o k in g a re a . D e ten tio n O ffice r W h itl e yre m o v e d M s. G ian n e tti ’s h a n d c u ffs, e sc o rte d th e tw o to t he haz - m atr oom , and r etur ned t o t he booki ng ar ea. D et ent i on O ffi cerW hi t l ey i ns t ruct ed D i s pat cherSt um baugh thatM s . G i annett i had t o be “c hanged out . ” Id. at330. W hi l e i n t he haz - m atr oom , D i s pat cherSt um baugh s ai d s he r etr i eved a n o ra n g e ju m p su it fro m a c a b in e t an d e x p lain e d to M s. G ian n e tt th a t sh e w o u ld h a v e to p u t th e ju m p s u it o n . M s . G ia n n e tti s ta te d s h e w a s n o t g o in g to c h a n g e . A f ter f u rth e r v e rb a l p ro tes t, D isp a tch e r S tu m b a u g h sta ted th a t M s. G ian n e tti h it h e ri n t h e l e f

tl o we rj a w. A tt hi s t i m e, O ffi cerM i l l er , L t . M cD ougal , and D et ent i on O ffi cerW hi t l ey h ea rd a co m m o ti o n in the h az -m at roo m . M s. G iann ett i can b e h ea rd sa y ing “I’m 3( . . . cont i nued) 3 happene d dur i ng t he nea r l yt w entym i nut es M s . G i annett i l aypr one i ns i de the h a z - ma tr o o m. -7- notchangi ng. ” U pon ent er i ng t he haz - m atr oom , D et ent i on O ffi cerW hi t l ey h a n d c u ffe d M s. G ian n e tti , w h o fe ll t o h e r k n e e s. O ffice r M ill e r a n d L t. M cD ougal s hi ft ed M s . G i annett i t o a fa cedow n pos i t i on. A ft ers om e s t ruggl i ng, D i s pat cherSt um baugh w as abl e t o t ake off M s . G i annett i ’ s s ocks , atw hi ch poi nt s he di s cover ed M s . G i annett i w as w ear i ng pantyhos e. A tt hi s poi nt , O ffi cer W hi t l eyobs erved thatt hes e t oo w oul d have t o be r emoved t o ens ur e thatt he p a n tyh o se w o u ld n o t b e u se d a s a su icid e in stru m e n t. D ur i ng a pr oces s t hatl as t ed appr oxi m at el yt en t o fi ft een mi nut es , t he offi cer s t ook off M s . G i annett i ’ s pantyhos e and pl ace d t he j um ps ui tuni for m on t he l ow erhal f of he rbody . D ur i ng t he maj or i t yof thatt i m e, M s . G i annett i w as s t ruggl i ng w i t h t hr ee mal e off i cer s – ki cki ng w i t h herl egs , m ovi ng herhead, and usi ng her nai l s t o d i g int o o ne o ffi cer’ s ar m – w hil e t he o ffi cers held her l egs, a rm s, h e a d , an d b a c k d o w n in a n e ffo rt to k e e p h e r f ro m m o v in g . A t o n e p o in t, M s . G i annett i ki cked O ffi cerM i l l eri n t he che s ts o t hathe w as for ced ba ckw ar ds in to a lo c k e r. D e ten tio n O ffice r W h itl e ya n d O ffice r M ill e r to ld M s. G ian n e tti s ever al t i m es t he pantyhos e had t o come off. M s . G i annett i r es ponded that“they can’ tcome off, t heyw on’ tcome off. ” Id. at152. L t . M cD ougal i ns t ruct ed the o ffic e rs to re m o v e th e p a n tyh o s e b e c a u s e M s . G ia n n e tti w o u ld n o t.-8-

A t on e p o int, D eten ti o n O fficer W h it leyh ad h is ha n d s o n M s. G iann ett i’ s s houl derbl ades and O ffi cerM i l l err es t r ai ned herl egs i n a fi gur e fourr es t r ai nt (pl aci ng on e foo tbeh i nd t he k nee o f t he o pp osi ng l eg an d then be nd i ng t hat l eg so as t o contr ol bot h fee t ) . L t . M cD ougal t hen t ook overforD et ent i on O ffi cer W hi t l ey , w ho hel ped O ffi cerM i l l err es t r ai n M s . G i annett i ’ s l egs . D i s pat cher St um baugh r emoved hers w eatpant s and panyt hos e, w hi l e M s . G i annett i cont i nued to s tru g g le . O ffi cerM i l l ers ubs equent l ys hi ft ed s pot s agai n, and Lt . M cD ougal pl ace d hi s l eftknee t ow ar ds t he mi ddl e of M s . G i annett i ’ s back. L t . M cD ougal s t at ed t hathe appl i ed onl yt he amountof pr es s ur e nec es s aryt o keep M s . G i annett i fr om r i s i ng. L t . M cD ougal pl ace d hi s l eftcal f ac r os s herhead. H e then s hi ft ed and pl ace d hi s l eftknee on he rr i ghts houl derw i t h hi s l eg ac r os s t he bac k of herneck. O ffice r M ill e r a n d D e ten tio n O ffice r W h itl e ytes tifie d th a t M s. G ian n e tti e x p re ss e d a t lea st tw ice d u rin g th e stru g g le th a t sh e w a s h a v in g d ifficu lty br eathi ng by“s cr eam[i ng] ” thather“l ungs w er e col l aps i ng” and a tl eas tonce i ndi cat ed that“s he coul dn’ tbr eathe. ” Id. at160 ( O ffi cerM i l l ert es t i fy i ng t hat “G iann ett i st ated sh e c o u ld n o t brea the, he r l u n g s w ere co ll ap sing , an d w e w ere h u rtin g h e r” ), 3 0 7 -0 8 (D e ten tio n O ffice r W h itl e ytes tify in g th a t “a t lea st a c o u p le of t i m es ” s he “s cr eamed” thather“l ungs ar e col l aps i ng”) . A ccor di ng t o O ffi cer M il ler an d D ispa tche r S tum b au g h sh e a lso b eg g ed fo r th e o fficers to “ stop , y o u ’re ki l l i ng m e y ou’ r e hur t i ng m e. ” Id. at164 ( O ffi cerM i l l ernot i ng t hats he moaned-9-

t hat“w e’ r e ki l l i ng her , t hatw e’ r e hur t i ng her ”) ; 353 ( D i s pat cherSt um baugh t est i fy i ng t hat M s. G i ann et t i sai d “st op , y ou ’r e hu rt i ng m e”). O ffi cer M i l l er al so not ed thats he pl eade d “pl eas e s t op, oh, G od, pl eas e. ” Id . at164. D et ent i on O ffi cerW hi t l eyand O ffi cerM i l l eras s i s t ed i n put t i ng t he j um ps ui ton M s . G i annett i . A ft eri tw as up t o herw ai s t , t he off i cer s deci ded t o l et M s . G ia n n e tti fin is h c h a n g in g h e rs e lf, a lth o u g h s h e w a s s till i n h a n d c u ffs . O ffi cerM i l l eras ked M s . G i annett i t o s i tup and w al k ors he w oul d have t o be carr i ed. M s . G i annett i di d notans w er . O ffi cerM i l l ert es t i fi ed thatatt hi s poi nt M s. G ian n e tti re m a in e d h a n d c u ffe d , an d w a s ly in g p a rtiallyo n h e r sto m a c h . L t. M cD ougal l eftt he r oom t o getas s i s t ance t o carr yM s . G i annett i . O ffi cerM i l l er not ed thatdur i ng t hi s t i m e s he “ha d r ol l ed more t o hers i de. ” Id. a t 1 6 6 . O ffice r M ill e r m o n ito re d M s. G ian n e tti e v e ryth irtyse c o n d s o r so to se e if herr i bs w er e movi ng. H e not i ced thataft eraboutni netys econds , s he di d not ap p ea r t o b e b rea thing , an d that, af ter roll ing h er o n to h er b ac k , h er li p s w ere “s l i ght l ybl ui s h. ” Id. a t 1 6 8 . A f ter c a lli n g fo r h e lp , O ffice r M ill e r a n d L t. M cD ougal began CP R , w hi l e M s . G i annett i ’ s w r i s t s r emai ned handc uffe d behi nd herback. D et ent i on O ffi cerW hi t l eycal l ed foran ambul ance , and w i t hi n t hr ee m i nut es , t he medi cal offi cerfr om t he St i l l w at erFi r e D epart m entarr i ved. T he ambul ance cr ew t ook M s . G i annett i t o t he St i l l w at erM edi cal C ent er , w her e s he d i e d l a t e rt h a td a y.T he p art i es agreed t o h ave thi s case heard bya m agis t rat e j ud ge. T hu s, 4 th is a p p e a l is p ro p e rlytak e n f ro m th e m a g istra te ju d g e ’s e n tryo f fin a l ju d g m e n t. See 2 8 U . S . C . § 6 3 6 (c)(3). -10- T he O klahom a M edical E xam i ner’ s O ffi cer i nit i al l ydeterm i ned t hat M s. G i annett i di ed fr om “pr obabl e ca r di ac dy s r hy t hm i a dur i ng agi t at ed s t at e. ” Id. at 438. O kl ahoma’ s C hi ef M edi cal E xami neramended t hos e fi ndi ngs and det erm i ned thats he di ed fr om “anoxi c enc ephal opathydue t o pr obabl e ca r di ac dy s r hy t hm i a due t o r es t r ai nt/pos i t i onal as phy xi a. ” Id. v o l. II, at 66 2 . M r. G iann ett i fi led th is acti o n in the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtfo r th e W estern D i s t r i ctof O kl ahoma pur s uantt o 42 U . S. C . § 1983. T he compl ai ntal l eged that t he defendantoffi cer s vi ol at ed hi s w i fe’ s Four t h A m endmentr i ght s bys ubj ect i ng hert o exce s s i ve for ce w hi l e ac t i ng undercol orof l aw , and thatM s . G i annett i di ed a s a re su lt o f

su c h e x c e ss iv e fo rc e . T h e c o m p lain t als o a lleg e d th a t th e C ity fai l ed t o pr oper l yt r ai n, educa t e, and s upervi s e the off i cerdefe ndant s , and thatt he defe ndantoffi cer s ’ negl i gence r es ul t ed i n M s . G i annett i ’ s w r ongful death. T h e d efen d an ts fil ed a m o ti o n fo r sum m aryjud g m en t, an d the d istri ct co u rt g ra n ted th a t m o tio n , fin d in g th a t th e o ffice rs a c ted re a so n a b lyu n d e r th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t, a n d d id n o t e n g a g e in th e u se o f e x c e ss iv e fo rc e . A s to th e sta te 4 t o r tc l a i ms , t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r tru l e d t h a tt h e Ci t ywa s i mmu n e u n d e rt h e Ok l a h o ma G overnm ent al T or tC l ai m s A ct , butt hatt he i ndi vi dual defe ndantoffi cer s had not pr es ent ed a s um m aryj udgm entar gum enton t he s t at e cl ai m s . T he part i es-11-

s ubs equent l yagr eed t o a di s m i s s al of the s t at e t or tcl ai m s . T he di s t r i ctcour tt hen ent er ed j udgm enti n favorof al l t he defendant s on al l cl ai m s . W e have j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n d we a ffi r m. I I . DI S CU S S I ON M r . G i annett i cont ends t hatt he off i cer s us ed exc es s i ve for ce i n vi ol at i on of t he F ou rth A m end m ent w hen t heyres t rai ned and han dcu ffed his w i fe. H e al so c o n ten d s th a t th e C ity ’s tra in in g m a ter ials a re re lev a n t to th is in q u iry . In th e ir cr os s - appea l , t he off

i cer s m ai nt ai n t hat , even i f a r eas onabl e j ur ycoul d fi nd t hat th e yu se d e x c e ss iv e fo rc e d u rin g M s. G ian n e tti ’s d e ten tio n , the ya re e n tit led to qual i fi ed i m m uni t ybeca us e att he t i m e of the vi ol at i on, t he exi s t i ng l aw w as not c le a rl ye s ta b lis h e d s o th a t th e u n la w f u ln e s s o f

th e e x c e s s iv e fo rc e w a s a p p a re n t. Fort he r eas ons s t at ed her ei n, w e hol d t hat( 1) t he di s t r i ctcour tpr oper l ygr ant ed su m m aryjud g m en t t o the o fficers, ( 2 ) M r. G iann ett i’ s arg u m en t th at th e C ity ’s t rai ning m at eri al s ar e rel evan ti s forecl osed b you r pr ecede nt, and (3) t he o ffi cers ’ c ro ss -a p p e a l is m o o t. A . St andard of r evi ew W e r evi ew a gr antof s um m aryj udgm entde novo, cons t rui ng t he fa ctual re c o rd a n d re a s o n a b le in fe re n c e s in th e lig h t m o s t fa v o ra b le to M r. G ia n n e tti. Tras k v. Fr anco , 4 4 6 F .3 d 1 0 3 6 , 1 0 4 5 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). S u m m a ryju d g m e n t is a p p ro p ria te o n lyw h e re th e re is n o g e n u in e iss u e o f m a ter ial fa c t an d o n e p a rtyis e n title d to ju d g m e n t a s a m a tte r o f la w . F ED . R. C IV . P. 56( c) . T he part i es do not-12-

d ispu te th e u n d erly ing fa cts, li m it ing o u r an aly sis t o w h ethe r th e d istri ct co u rt c o rr e c tly a p p lie d th e la w . Wo l f v . P r u d e n t i a lIn s . Co . o f A m. , 50 F. 3d 793, 796 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ). W hen a defend ant r ai ses the d efen se of q uali fi ed im m un i t y , w e m ust cons i dert w o ques t i ons : “( 1) w hethert he al l eged c onductvi ol at ed a c ons t i tut i onal r i ght , and i f s o, ( 2) w hethert he l aw w as cl ear l yes t abl i s hed att he t i m e of the defe ndant ’ s act i ons . ” Sh ru m v . C ity o f C o w e ta , 4 4 9 F . 3 d 1 1 3 2 , 1 1 3 8 (10 th C ir . 2006) ( ci t i ng Sa u c ierv . Ka tz , 533 U . S. 194 ( 2001) ) . “The r el evant , di s pos i t i ve in q u iryin d e ter m in in g w h e th e r a rig h t is c lea rlye sta b lish e d is w h e th e r it w o u ld be cl eart o a r eas onabl e off i cert hathi s conductw as unl aw ful i n t he s i tuat i on he confr ont ed. ” Sauci er , 533 U . S. at202. W e mustfi r s tr es ol ve w hethera cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on occurr ed “be caus e,

‘ i n t he cour s e of de t erm i ni ng w hethera cons t i tut i onal r i ghtw as vi ol at ed on the p re m ise s a lleg e d , a c o u rt m ig h t fin d it n e c e ss a ryto se t fo rth p rin c ip les w h ich w ill become t he bas i s fora hol di ng t hata r i ghti s cl ear l yes t abl i s hed. ’ ” Mi m i cs , Inc. v. Vi l l ag e of An gel Fir e , 394 F. 3d 836, 842 ( 10t h C i r . 2005) ( quot i ng Sauci er , 533 U . S. at201) . W e r evi ew t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm enton t he bas i s of qual i fi ed i m m uni t yde novo, and affi r m onl yi f the r ecor d r evea l s no genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac t , s uch thatt he movi ng par t yi s ent i t l ed t o j udgm ent a s a m a tte r o f

la w . Johns on ex r el . Es t at e of C ano v. Holm es , 455 F. 3d 1133, 1 1 4 2 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ).-13-

B . T he offi cer s ’ use of force w as obj ect i vel y reas onabl e under G r a h a m v . Connor Fol l ow i ng Sauci erw e m u st first d e ter m in e w h e th e r, o n th e fa c ts o ffe re d in s uppor tof M r . G i annett i ’ s cl ai m , t he C i t yof St i l l w at eroffi cer s ’ conductvi ol at ed th e c o n s titu tio n a l p ro h ib itio n a g a in s t th e u s e o f e x c e s s iv e fo rc e . See P hi l l i ps v. Jam es , 4 2 2 F .3 d 1 0 7 5 , 1 0 8 0 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ); D ru m m o n dex re l. D ru m m o n dv . C ity o

f A n a h e im , 3 4 3 F . 3 d 1 0 5 2 , 1 0 5 6 (9th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). M r. G ia n n e tti c o n te n d s th a t th e o ffic e rs ’ u s e o f fo rc e in h o ld in g M s . G ia n n e tti, a m e n tallyill o b e se fe m a le, in a p ro n e p o sitio n fo r te n to fif tee n m in u tes d e sp ite h e r a p p a re n t a n d v o ic e d d is tr e s s , w a s a n u n re a s o n a b le a n d e x c e s s iv e u s e o f fo rc e . T he di s t r i ctcour tfound that“the undi s put ed evi dence r efl ect s an es cal at i ng s t ruggl e and, w i t h t he i ncr eas ed i nt ens i t yof the r i s k t o t he off i cer s , t hey r es ponded w i t h addi t i onal r es t r ai nt . ” A pl t ’ s A pp. vol . I I , at945 ( D i s t . C t . O r der fi l ed F eb. 6, 20 06 ). W e agree w i t h the di stri ctcou rt ’s con cl usi on s. A l l par t i es agr ee thatt he Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n G r aham v. C onnor , 4 9 0 U .S . 3 8 6 (1 9 8 9 ), se ts fo rth th e a p p lica b le e x c e ss iv e fo rc e a n a ly sis . “[ A ]ll c laim s th a t law e n fo rc e m e n t o ffice rs h a v e u se d e x c e ss iv e fo rc e – d e a d lyo r n o t– in t he cour s e of a n arr es t , i nves t i gat or ys t op, orot her‘ s ei zur e’ of a f r ee c i t i zen shou l d b e analy zed u nd er the F ou rth A m end m ent and i t s ‘ reas on ableness’ s t andar d. ” 490 U . S. at395 . “ [ L ]a w e n fo rc e m e n t o ffice rs m u st b e ‘o bjec tiv e ly-14-

r eas onabl e’ i n t hei rs ear ches and s ei zur es . ” D ixon v. R i cher , 922 F. 2d 1456, 1461 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ). [I ] n e x c e s s i v e fo r c e c l a i ms a s s e r t e d u n d e r t h e Fo u r t h Am e n d me nt , t he q u a lifie d im m u n ity q u e stio n is us u a lly a n sw e re d in th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t in q u iry . T h is is b e c a u s e , in th e e x c e ss iv e fo rc e c o n tex t, t he Four t h A m endment i nqui r yas ks di r ect l yw hethert he pol i ce offi cer r eas onab ly co u ld ha ve bel i eved thatt he for ce w as nece s s aryundert he ci rcum st ances. Id. at1463. D e ter m in in g w h e th e r fo rc e u se d to e ffe c t a p a rticu lar se izu re is reas on a b le u nd er the F ou rth A m end m ent r equ i res a car ef ulbal anci ng o f th e n a tu re a n dq u a lit y o f th e in tru sio n o n th e in d iv id u a l’s Fo u rth A m e n dm e n t in ter e sts a g a in st th e c o u n ter v a ili n gg o v e rn m e n ta l in ter e sts ats t ake . . . . B e c a u se th e tes t o f re a so n a b len e ss u n d e r th e F o u rth A m endmenti s notcapa bl e o f p r eci s e def i ni t i on orm echa ni cal appl i cat i on, how ever , i t s pr operappl i cat i on “ r equi r es car ef ulat t ent i on t o the facts an d cir cu m stan ces of each par t i cularcase , incl udi ng the s eve r it y of the cr im e atis s ue, w hetherthe s us pect pos es an im m e dia te th reat to th e safet

y of th e off

i cers o r o th e rs , a n dw h e th e r h e is a c tive ly re sis tin ga rr e st o r a ttemp tin gto e v a d e a rr e st by flig h t. ”

. . . . I n appl y i ng t hi s s t andar d, w e ar e t o cons i dert he evi dence i n t he l i ght m o st fav o rab le t o [th e p erso n w h o w as a rrested ]. Id. at1462 ( quot i ng G r aham , 490 U . S. at396) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m ar ks om i t t ed) (em p h asis ad d ed ). A ddi t i onal l y , “the ‘ r eas onabl enes s ’ of a pa r t i cul arus e of for ce mustbe ju d g e d f ro m th e p e rsp e c tiv e o f a re a so n a b le o ffice r o n th e sc e n e , rath e r th a n w ith t he 20/ 20 vi s i on of hi nds i ght . ” G r aham , 490 U . S. at396. I n exce s s i ve for ce cl ai m s , “[t ] he ca l cul us of r eas onabl enes s m us tembodyal l ow ance fort he fa ctt hat-15-

pol i ce offi cer s ar e oft en for ced t o m ake s pl i t - s econd j udgm ent s –i n ci r cumst ance s th a t ar e ten se , u n c e rta in , an d ra p id lye v o lv in g – a b o u t th e a m o u n t o f fo rc e th a t is nece s s aryi n a part i cul ars i tuat i on. ” Id. a t 3 9 6 -9 7 . T h e S u p re m e C o u rt h a s a lso re c o g n ize d th a t “ G r aham does notal w ay s gi ve a cl earans w eras t o w hethera part i cul arappl i cat i on of for ce w i l l be dee m ed exce s s i ve byt he court s . ” Sa u c ierv . Ka tz , 533 U . S. at205. “I ti s w el l s et t l ed that t he reasonab l eness st and ard doe s not r equ i re that offi cers use al t ernat i ve, l ess i nt rus i ve means w hen conf r ont ed w i t h a thr eatof s er i ous bodi l yi nj ur y . ” B l os s om v. Yar br ough , 429 F. 3d 963, 968 ( 10t h C i r . 2005) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m ar ks om i t t ed) . B eca us e G r aham m u s t “ a c c o m m o d a te lim itle s s fa c tu a l c ir c u m s ta n c e s ,” w e e x a m in e th e fa c ts a n d c ir c u m s ta n c e s o f M s . G ia n n e tti’ s a rr e s t. Sauci er , 533 U .S . at 2 0 5 ; L aw m ast er v. Ward , 125 F. 3d 1341, 1349 ( 10t h C i r . 1997) ( s t at i ng th a t th e “ re a so n a b len e ss in q u iryu n d e r th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t “is a h ig h ly fa c t- d e p e n d e n t in q u ir yth a t c a n o n ly b e d e te rm in e d o n a c a s e -b y -c a s e b a s is ” ). 1 . S e v e r i t yo f

t h e c r i me M r . G i annett i cont ends t hatt he di s t r i ctcour tgave s hor ts hr i ftt o t he negl i gi bl e s ever i t yof the cr i m e i n ques t i on w hen ana l y zi ng t he fa ct s . H e ar gues th a t M s. G ian n e tti w a s a rre ste d fo r o n lya m isd e m e a n o r tra ffic o ffe n se , an d n o t a se v e re o ffe n se th a t w o u ld im m e d iate lysu p p o rt a n in c re a se d u se o f fo rc e . W h ile w e agr ee thatM s . G i annett i ’ s or i gi nal offe ns e di d noti nvol ve a c r i m e of vi ol ence and s he w as unarm ed, and thatherodd behavi ordi d notpos e an i m m edi at e thr eat-16-

t o the ass em bled group of o ffi cers , w e m ustal so factori nto the eq uati on t hat M s. G i ann et t i had j uststruck D i spat cher Stum bau gh . W hil e w e agree t hat w e m ust co n side r th e m ino r na ture o f M s. G iann ett i’ s o ri g inal o ffen se u n d er G r aham , we m us tal s o be mi ndful of M s . G i annett i ’ s bat t eryof the di s pat cherpr i ort o t he offi cer s ’ us e of for ce. T he Ei ght h C i r cui tr ece nt l yr ej ect ed an offi cer ’ s r el i ance on m ul t i pl e mi nor offe ns es i n s uppor tof the r eas onabl enes s of hi s us e of pe ppers pr ayagai ns tt he pl ai nt i ff: Off i c e r M u n n ’ s r e fe r e n c e t o t h e o ffe n s e s fo r whi c h Hen d er s on w as arr es t ed–o b struct i ng governm ent al oper at i ons bygi vi ng a fa l s e name, re sis tin g a rre st, p u b lic in to x ica tio n , an d th e tw o o u tsta n d in g w a rra n ts forfai l ur e t o appea r–fai l s t o t i p t he s cal es of r eas onabl enes s i n O ffi cer M unn’ s favor . T he negl i gi bl e s ever i t yof s uch offens es di d not nece s s ar i l yj us t i fyt he amountof for ce us ed aga i ns t an i ndi vi dual w ho, acc or di ng t o H en d ers on’ s al l egat i ons , al r eadyhad bee n s ubdued and res t rai ned w i t h h and cuffs. Henders on v. Munn , 4 3 9 F . 3 d 4 9 7 , 5 0 3 (8th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). H o w ev er, M s. G iann ett i did a tt em p t t o ev ad e, or a t l ea st, d elayarrest. M r. G i annett i does notdi s put e that , w hi l e att he j ai l , aft ers he s t ruck O ffi cer S tu m b a u g h , the o ffice rs’ in iti a l h a n d c u ffin g o f M s. G ian n e tti w a s a re a so n a b le i nt ervent i on. M r . G i annett i cont ends t hatt he di s t r i ctcour tgave s hor ts hr i ftt o t he negl i gi bl e s ever i t yof the cr i m e i n ques t i on w hen ana l y zi ng t he fa ct s . W e agr ee that w e m u st co n side r th e m ino r na ture o f M s. G iann ett i’ s o ffen se u n d er G r aham . 2. I m m edi at e thr eatt o t he off i cer s and ac t i ve r es i s t ance-17-

M r. G ian n e tti n e x t ar g u e s th a t, w h ile h is w ife w a s h a n d c u ffe d a n d p lac e d in a pr one pos i t i on, s he pos ed l i t t l e i m m edi at e thr eatt o t he off i cer s . H e ar gues t hat h e r p h y sic a l stru g g lin g a n d k ick in g o f th e o ffice rs r e su lted f ro m fe a r a n d p a n ic w hen fa ced w i t h hamper ed br eathi ng and pos s i bl e s uffoc at i on. Such r eac t i on, acc or di ng t o M r . G i annett i , di d notw arr antt he s ever al offi cer s ’ extr eme and u n re a s o n a b le u s e o f

fo rc e to in c a p a c ita te a p ro n e a n d h a n d c u ffe d M s . G ia n n e tti. T h u s , a rg u e s M r. G ia n n e tti, a ju ry sh o u ld d e c id e th e re a s o n a b le n e s s o f fo rc e u s e d . See, e. g. , Henders on , 439 F. 3d at503 ( “B yt he t i m e H ender s on w as handcuffed and pi nned fa ce dow n on t he gr ound, a r eas onabl e j ur ycoul d deci de H ender s on w as no l ongerr es i s t i ng arr es t , even i f he ha d r es i s t ed arr es tbefor e bei ng su b d u ed . ”); Lis t on v. C ount y of R i vers i de , 120 F. 3d 965, 976 n. 10 ( 9t h C i r . 1997) ( “ W e h a v e h e l d r e p e a t e d l y t h a tt h e r e a s o n a b l e n e s s o f fo r c e u s e d i s o r d i n a r i l y a q u e s tio n o f

fa c t fo r t h e ju ry.” ). M r . G i annett i al s o emphasi zes hi s w i fe’ s evi dentm ent al i l l nes s and aberr antbehavi ordur i ng and af t ert he arr es t , w hi ch he c l ai m s w as know n byt he i nvol ved off

i cer s . M s . G i annett i had bee n di agnos ed w i t h bi pol ardi s or derand had m ult i ple pr evious psy chiatri c adm i ssi on s. O ffi cer M i l l er s t at ed thatw hen M s. G i annett i l ocked he r s el f i n t he ca rs he appe ar“i l l - r at i onal ” [s i c] , and thats he w as p e rsp irin g h e a v ily , a p o ss ib le s ig n o f d ru g u se . A p lt’s A p p . v o l. I, a t 1 9 7 -9 8 . L t. M cD ougal w as fami l i arw i t h M s . G i annett i ’ s err at i c beha vi orbeca us e of pr evi ous in ter a c tio n s w ith h e r. A lth o u g h M s. G ian n e tti d id n o t co n firm a n yp sy c h iatric-18-

his t oryw hen she answ ered D et enti on O ffi cer W hit l ey ’s m edical his t oryqu est i on s, s he di d expl ai n t hats he w as t aki ng D epakot e, w hi ch s he ca l l ed “c hi l l pi l l s . ” Id. a t 2 6 2 . W e agr ee thata det ai nee’ s m ent al heal t h m us tbe t aken i nt o acc ountw hen cons i der i ng t he off

i cer s ’ us e of for ce a nd i ti s t her efor e partof the fa ctual circu m stan ce s the co u rtco n side rs un d er G r aham . See Champi on v. O ut l ook Na sh v ill e , Inc. , 380 F. 3d 893, 904 ( 6t h C i r . 2004) ( “I tcannotbe for got t en thatt he pol i ce w er e conf

r ont i ng an i ndi vi dual w hom they knew t o be m ental l y i l lor r etar ded , e v e n t h o u g h t h e O ffi c e r s m a y n o t h a v e kn o w n th e fu ll ex ten t of [the pl ai nt i ff’ s ] aut i s m and hi s unr es pons i venes s . T he di m i ni s hed ca paci t yof an unarm ed det ai nee mustbe t aken i nt o acc ountw hen as s es s i ng t he amountof for ce ex erted . ”) (em p h asis ad d ed ); A bdul l ahi v. C i t y of Madis on , 423 F. 3d 763, 772 (7th C i r. 20 05 ) ( no t i ng t hat an officer ’s kn ow l edg e of m ental dis abil i t y“m ayal so b e d e e m e d re lev a n t to th e re a so n a b len e ss in q u iry ” ); D r um m ond , 343 F. 3d at1058 ( “[A ] det ai nee’ s m ent al i l l nes s m us tbe r efl ect ed i n anyas s es s m entof the g o v e rn m e n t’s in ter e st in th e u se o f fo rc e .”); D eorl e v. R utherf ord , 272 F. 3d 1272, 1 2 8 3 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 1 ) (“ [ W ]e e m p h a siz e th a t w h e re it i s o r sh o u ld b e a p p a re n t to t he off i cer s t hatt he i ndi vi dual i nvol ved i s emot i onal l ydi s turbed, t hati s a fa ct or that m u st be co n side red in d eterm ining , u n d er G r aham , t he r eas onabl enes s of the fo rc e e m p lo y e d .” ).-19-

D es pi t e M s . G i annett i ’ s evi dent l yi r r at i onal behavi orand as s um i ng t he o fficers’ fa m il iari tyw ith h er m en tal h ist o ry , w e c an n o t con clud e tha t th e o fficers us ed exc es s i ve for ce gi ven the “t ens e, uncert ai n, and r api dl yevol vi ng” s i tuat i on p re s e n te d b yM s . G ia n n e tti’ s b e h a v io r. G r aham , 490 U . S. at396- 97. A s t he offi cer s poi ntout , t he Seventh C i r cui tdeci s i on i n Es t at e of P hi l l i ps v. C i t y of Mi lw aukee , 123 F. 3d 586 ( 7t h C i r . 1997) , i s par t i cul ar l yi ns t ruct i ve. M r . Phi l l i ps s uffe r ed fr om s ever al s er i ous m edi cal condi t i ons t hatw er e not“obs er vabl e t o t he unt r ai ned ey e, ” i ncl udi ng an enl ar ged hea r t , an enl ar ged thyr oi d, G r aves ’ di s eas e, a n d sc h izo p h re n ia . S e e id . at590, 594. L i ke M s . G i annett i , M r . Phi l l i ps w as obes e. M r . Phi l l i ps had bee n evi ct ed fr om hi s hot el r oom fordes t r oy i ng hot el pr oper t y . T he fol l ow i ng day , he r etur ned t o hi s for m err oom undet ect ed byus i ng a keythathe had r et ai ned. H ous ekee pi ng s t aff det ect ed hi m , and s um m oned s ecur i t y , w ho cal l ed the pol i ce. W hen the pol i ce e nt er ed the r oom , t heyfound M r . Phi l l i ps “vi s i bl ys haki ng and s w eat i ng. ” Id. at588. M r . Phi l l i ps di d notr es pond t o t he off i cer s ’ i nqui r i es , and he r es i s t ed the offi cer s . A s r ecount ed byt he A bdul l ahi cour t , t he P hi l l i ps fa c ts a re p a in f

u lly si m i l ar t o those befo re us: A fter tak ing d ec ed en t t o the g rou n d an d su b d u ing h im in a m an n er v ery s i m i l art o t he t echni que us ed byt he defen d ant offi cer s i n t hi s cas e, t he offi cer s l efthi m l y i ng fac e- dow n o n the gr ound w i t h hi s hands h an d cu ffed b eh ind h im fo r ap p rox im atelyfiv e m inu tes. D ec ed en t’ s-20-

w ei ght , hi s pos i t i on on the g round and ( appar ent l y ) hi s pr eexi s t i ng heal t h pr obl ems ca us ed hi m t o s uffoc at e. A bdul l ahi , 423 F. 3d at770 ( des cr i bi ng P hi l l i ps ). I n P hi l l i ps , as h ere , the u n co n tr o v erted test im o n yis th at th e d ec ed en t’ s act i ons caus ed the s t ruggl e t o es cal at e. L i ke M r . Phi l l i ps , M s . G i annett i , once pr one on the gr ound, cont i nued t o s t ruggl e and ki ck the off i cer s , atone poi nt s endi ng one off

i ceragai ns ta l ocker . W e agr ee that“[r ] es t r ai ni ng a per s on i n a pr one pos i t i on i s not , i n and of i t s el f, exce s s i ve for ce w hen the per s on r es t r ai ned i s r es i s t i ng arr es t . ” P hi l l i ps , 12 3 F . 3d at59 3. “T he m edical evidence an d w i t ness t es t i m onyi n t hi s cas e s how s t hatt he off i cer s di d notpunch, s l ap, ki ck or o th e rw is e d e liv e r a b lo w ” to M s . G ia n n e tti. Id . “ A u th o rities m u st b e a llo w e d ‘to gr aduat e thei rr es pons e t o t he demands of anypar t i cul ars i tuat i on. ’ ” Uni t ed St at es v. Mont oya de Her nandez , 473 U . S. 531, 542 ( 1985) ( quot i ng Uni t ed Stat es v. P l ace , 4 6 2 U .S . 6 9 6 , 7 0 9 n .1 0 (1 9 8 3 )). H e re , the o ffice rs w e re n o t re q u ire d to

“ u s e a lte rn a tiv e , le s s in tru s iv e m e a n s ” d u ri n g th e e s c a la tin g s tru g g le . Medi na v. C r am , 2 5 2 F . 3 d 1 1 2 4 , 1 1 3 3 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). M r . G i annett i cont ends t hi s cas e i s m or e l i ke D r um m ond , w h e re th e N in th C i r cui tacknow l edged thatt he for ce us ed w as exce s s i ve al t hough “s om e for ce w as su re lyju stified in re stra in in g D ru m m o n d so th a t h e c o u ld n o t inju re e ith e r h im se lf o r th e a rre stin g o ffice rs.” 3 4 3 F .3 d a t 1 0 5 9 . M r. “D ru m m o n d w a s a m e n tally di s turbed i ndi vi dual notw ant ed foranycr i m e, w ho w as bei ng t aken i nt o cus t ody-21-

t o pr eventi nj ur yt o hi m s el f. ” Id . M r . D rum m ond s uffe r ed fr om bi pol ardi s or der and s chi zophr eni a, and had run outof m edi cat i on. T he off i cer s es cor t ed hi m t o a m e d ic a l fa c ility, b u t h e d id n o t h a v e th e f u n d s to o b ta in h is p re s c ri b e d m e d ic in e . T h e n ex t nigh t, M r. D rum m o n d ’s ne igh b o r ca ll ed the p o li ce to p rev en t M r. D ru m m o n d , w h o w a s h a llu c in a tin g a n d in a n a g itate d sta te, f ro m d a rtin g in to t r aff i c. W i t nes s es not ed thatt he off i cer s knocked M r . D rum m ond t o t he gr ound and lean ed u p o n h is up p er n ec k an d torso . T h e w itn esse s rep o rt ed that M r. D rum m ond t ol d t he off i cer s he coul d notbr eathe and w as choki ng, w hi l e the offi cer s w er e l aughi ng. T he N i nt h C i r cui tconcl uded that“af t erhe w as handcuffed a nd l y i ng on t he gr ound, t he for ce thatt he off i cer s t hen appl i ed w as cl ear l ycons t i tut i onal l yexce s s i ve w hen compar ed t o t he mi ni m al amount t hatw as w arr ant ed. ” Id . T h e c o u rt h e ld th a t “[ t]h e o ffice rs– in d e e d , an yre a so n a b le per s on–s houl d have know n t hats queez i ng t he br eath fr om a compl i ant , pr one, and h a n d c u ffe d in d iv id u a l d e sp ite h is p lea s fo r a ir in v o lv e s a d e g re e o f fo rc e th a t is gr eat ert han r eas onabl e. ” Id. U nl i ke D r um m ond , w her e M rD rum m ond no l onger re sis ted a f

ter th e o ffice rs p lac e d h im in a p ro n e p o sitio n , M s. G ian n e tti a c tiv e ly res i st ed, kicked, and t hrashed at the o ffi cers . W e con cl ud e t hat the o ffi cers ’ con t i nu ed u se of fo rce t o restrai n M s. G i ann et t i , al t ho ug h p erhaps no tt he leas t in tru siv e c h o ice th a t th e yc o u ld h a v e m a d e , w a s n o t u n re a so n a b le in re sp o n se to h e r e s c a la tin g o p p o s itio n . See Huds on v. McMi l l i an , 503 U . S. 1, 9- 10 ( 1992)-22-

(n o tin g th a t E ig h th A m e n d m e n t d o e s n o t p ro h ib it “ d e m in im is us es of phy s i cal for ce, pr ovi ded thatt he us e of for ce i s notof a s or tr epugnantt o t he cons ci ence of m a n k in d ” ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). O urconcl us i on i s but t r es s ed byt he Seventh C i r cui t ’ s hol di ng i n A bdul l ahi , 423 F. 3d at771. I n A bdul l ahi , u n lik e h e re , the p lain tiff id e n tifie d th e sp e c ific m isc o n d u c t at iss u e — th e o ffice r’s p lac in g h is k n e e o n th e d e c e d e n t’s b a c k w ith crus hi ng for ce. T he pl ai nt i ff a l s o i nt r oduced c om pet entm edi cal evi dence es t abl i s hi ng t hatt hi s actdi r ect l ycaus ed dea dl yi nj ur i es i ncl udi ng a col l aps ed l ung and otheri nj ur i es cons i s t entw i t h extr eme ext ernal pr es s ur e. B utt he courts t at ed t hat“the mer e fa ctt hatan i nj ur yoccurr ed w hi l e an i ndi vi dual w as i n pol i ce cus t odyi s nots uffi ci entt o avoi d s um m aryj udgm ent

— a pl ai nt i ff musti dent i fy t he s peci fi c unr eas onabl e conduc tt hatcaus ed hi s orheri nj ur i es . ” Id. a t 7 7 0 -7 1 . H er e, how ever , M r . G i annett i can poi ntt o no s peci fi c ac tof m i s conductt hat su g g e sts th e o ffice rs a p p lied e x c e ss iv e fo rc e . E v e n w h e n w e c o n stru e th e fa c ts in th e lig h t m o st fa v o ra b le to M r. G ian n e tti , h e c a n n o t es tab lish fa c ts s u fficie n t to s u rv iv e s u m m a ry ju d g e m e n t. C . T r a in in g m a te r ia ls M r . G i annett i al s o r el i es upon t he tr ai ni ng m at er i al s att he St i l l w at erpol i ce d e p a rt m e n t a s f

u rt h e r e v id e n c e o f

th e o ffic e rs ’ u n re a s o n a b le re s p o n s e . H o w e v e r, ourbr oad rul i ng i n Ta n b e rgv . Sh o ltis , 401 F. 3d 1151 ( 10t h C i r . 2005) , for ecl os es t hi s ar gum ent . I n Tan berg , w e hel d t hatt he fa ct“[t ] hatan arr es tvi ol at ed pol i ce-23-

depart m entpr ocedur es does n o t m ake itm ore or l ess l i kelyt hat the arr est im p li ca tes t h e F o u rth A m en d m en t, an d ev iden ce o f th e v iolati o n is th ere fo re i r r el evant . ” Id. at1163- 64 ( emphasi s added) . “I f [the off i cer s ] vi ol at ed the [depa r t m entpr ocedur es ] governi ng t he us e of for ce i n effect i ng arr es t , t hatfac t m ig h t w e ll b e p e rtin e n t to th e [ S til lw a ter p o lice d e p a rtm e n t’s] f u tu re d e c isio n s to prom ote, ret ai n, or di sci pli ne [them ]; i ti s not r el evan tt o d et erm i ning i f [M s. G ian n e tti ’s] a rre st v io late d th e re a so n a b len e ss re q u ire m e n t o f th e F o u rth A m endment . ” Id. a t 1 1 6 4 ; s ee als o G r oh v. R am i r ez , 5 4 0 U .S . 5 5 1 , 5 6 4 n .7 ( 2004) ( not i ng t hat , s t andi ng al one, an off i ci al i s not“depr i ved of qua l i fi ed im m u n ityw h en ev er h e v iolates an interna l gu ideline” ). D . C ros s - appeal T he off i cer s ar gue i n t hei rcr os s - appea l t hatt heyar e ent i t l ed t o qual i fi ed im m u n ityin th is a c tio n . B e c a u se th e d istric t co u rt g ra n ted su m m a ryju d g m e n t to t he off i cer s beca us e ther e w as no cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on, i tdi d notr eac h t he q u ali fied im m u n ityan aly sis. T h e o fficers n ev erthe less co n tend that theyare e n tit led to q u a lifie d im m u n ityb e c a u se (1 ) th e yd id n o t su bjec t M s. G ian n e tti to a n yv io latio n o f

h e r c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts, a n d (2 ) a n yv io latio n w a s n o t cle a rly est abli shed. Th e analy si s of t he ex cessi ve fo rce Fou rth A m end m ent cl ai m i s id e n tic a l to o u r a n a lysis o f th e fir s t p ro n g o f

a q u a lifie d im m u n ity c la im . W e r ej ectt he off

i cer s ’ appar ents ugges t i on t hatanyfur t heri nqui r yi s neede d.-24-

W e r ei t er at e “thatt aki ng a cr os s - appea l w as nei t hernece s s arynor a p p ro p ria te fo r th is p u rp o se . O n lya p a rtya g g rie v e d b yth e ju d g m e n t m a ya p p e a l, and [the defendant s w er e] 100% s ucce s s ful . ” L e p rin o Fo o ds. C o . v. Fa c to ry Mu t. Ins . C o. , 453 F. 3d 1281, 1290 ( 10t h C i r . 2006) ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( i nt ernal q u o tat ion m ark s o m itted). See a lso P hil l i ps v. A W

HC orp . , 363 F. 3d 1207, 1216 (F e d . C ir. 2 0 0 4 ) (“ A p a rtyh a s n o rig h t o f c ro ss -a p p e a l f

ro m a d e c isio n in its favor . Si m i l ar l y , a part yw ho pr evai l s . . . has no r i ghtt o fi l e a c ondi t i onal cr os s - appea l t o i nt r oduce ne w ar gum ent s orchal l enge a cl ai m cons t ruct i on, but m ays i m pl yas s er tal t ernat i ve gr ounds i n t he r ecor d foraff i r m i ng t he j udgm ent ”) (i n te rn a l c ita tio n s a n d q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ), r e v ’do n o th e rg r o u n ds , 415 F. 3d 1203 ( Fed. C i r . 2005) ( en banc ) . H er e, t he off i cer s ar e maki ng ar gum ent s i n t he a lte rn a tiv e ; b e c a u s e th e yw e re s u c c e s s f u l b e lo w , th e yc a n n o t file a c ro s s -a p p e a l. I I I . CO NC L US I ON I n t h i s c a s e , w e c o n f

r o n ta s o b e r i n g d e m o n s t r a t i o n o f h o w q u i c k l y a s eemi ngl yr out i ne mi s demeanorarr es tof a ment al l ydi s turbed i ndi vi dual m ay es cal at e and r es ul ti n t r agi c cons equenc es . W hi l e the cr i m i nal conductunder l y i ng M s. G ian n e tti ’s a rre st w a s n o t se v e re , sh e p o se d a g ra v e th re a t to h e rse lf a n d to th e o ffice rs. A b se n t ev id e n c e th a t th e o ffice rs’ c o n d u c t w a s o bjec tiv e ly unr eas onabl e, t he exc es s i ve for ce c l ai m m us tfai l . W hi l e i n r etr os pect , one mi ght w onderw hethert he off i cer s s houl d have for egone the r equi r ementof cha ngi ng in to th e ju m p su it, th e re c o rd m a k e s c lea r th a t th e ir re sp o n se s h a d to a c c o m m o d a te-25-

a ra p id lyd e ter io ra tin g situ a tio n . M o re o v e r, th e ir re sp o n se s re flec ted th e ir a p p ro p ri a te c o n c e rn th a t M s . G ia n n e tti w a s d a n g e ro u s to h e rs e lf a n d o th e rs . A ccor di ngl y , w e A FFIRM t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s gr antof the off i cer s ’ m ot i on for su m m a ryju d g m e n t, an d D IS M IS S th e o ffice rs’ c ro ss -a p p e a l as m o o t.

E n ter e d fo r th e C o u rt, R o b ert H . H en ry C i r cui tJ udge