A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det er m i ned * unani m ous l yt o gr antt he part i es ’ r eques tfora dec i s i on on t he br i efs w i t houtor al a rg u m e n t. See F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (f); 10 th C ir . R . 3 4 . 1 (G ). T h e c ase is th ere fo re or der ed s ubm i t t ed w i t houtor al ar gum ent . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t ent w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 .1 . 

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

### Jan u ary26,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT FRE D RI CH A RD D RE I S, Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. M A R T I N H I E T A L A , as an i ndi vi dual and i n hi s offi ci al capa ci t yas an e n fo rc e m e n t o ffice r o f th e D a v is C ount ySher i ff’ s O ffi ce, D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 05- 4221 ( D. C. No . 1 : 0 2 - CV- 1 5 4 - TC)

( D . U t ah)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HA RTZ , HOLL OW AY , and BA LD OCK , C i rcui tJudg es. D e fe n d a n t M a rtin H ieta la, a D e p u tyS h e riff in D a v is C o u n ty , U tah (D e p u ty H ieta la) , b rin g s th is in ter lo c u to rya p p e a l f ro m th e d istric t co u rt’s d e n ial o f h is m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm entbas ed on qual i fi ed i m m uni t y . B eca us e w e l ack a p p e llate ju risd ictio n o v e r th e d istric t co u rt’s r u lin g , w e d ism iss th is a p p e a l.-2- I. A ccor di ng t o pl ai nt i ff Fr ed D r ei s ’ s ver s i on of eve nt s , on t he eve ni ng of J anuary10, 2002, he w as dr i vi ng hi s 1976 t ruck i n O gden, U t ah, on hi s w ayt o a fr i end’ s hom e i n Sy r acus e, U t ah. W hi l e i n O gden, an unmar ked vehi cl e, dr i ven byoff- dut yD eputyH i et al a ( and cont ai ni ng a pas s enger ) , honked atM r . D r ei s and s t ar t ed fol l ow i ng hi m . T he unmar ked vehi cl e fol l ow ed M r . D r ei s “fora t ot al of appr oxi m at el y20 m i l es ornear l y30 m i nut es . . . i n a menaci ng m anner , vi ol at i ng th e rig h t-o f-w a yo f

o n c o m in g tra ffic . . . an d ru n n in g a re d lig h t . . . . ” A p lt. A p p . a t 1 2 . W hen M r . D r ei s r eac hed hi s des t i nat i on he pul l ed up t o t he curb, s t opped, and exi t ed hi s t ruck. D eputyH i et al a “s cr eec hed t o a hal tatan angl e t o” M r. D re is ’s tru c k , id . at61, and “j um ped outof hi s vehi cl e i n [a] . . . vi ol ent m anner , ” i d. at 12 . A fter M r. D reis ask ed , “‘W h yare y o u fo ll o w ing m e? ’” D ep u tyH iet ala thre w a b ad g e w rap p ed in leathe r ac ross the h o o d o f h is car, g r a b b e d M r . Dr e i s , s t ru c k h i m wi t h h i s l e f tfo r e a r m, a n d a n n o u n c e d “ ‘ I ’ m a D eputySher i ff; y ou ar e goi ng t o j ai l ! ’ ” Id. M r. D re is a sk e d w h y , an d D e p u ty H i et al a r es ponded, “‘ Forr eckl es s dr i vi ng. ’ ” Id. M r . D r ei s , w ho hi m s el f i s a tr ai ned l aw enfor cementoffi cer , obs er ved that D e p u tyH ieta la d id n o t ap p e a r to h a v e h a n d c u ffs o r a w e a p o n , an d h e n e g lec ted to a sk M r. D re is fo r h is lice n se o r re g istra tio n . W h e n M r. D re is a sk e d to se e D e p u ty H i et al a’ s i dent i fi cat i on, D eputyH i et al a r efus ed and t ol d M r . D r ei s t hathe “w as-3-

goi ng t o ‘ s t ar ts t acki ng char ges . ’ ” Id. M eanw hi l e, t he fe m al e pas s engerw ho w as ri d in g in D e p u ty H ie ta la ’s u n m a rk e d c a r c o n tin u e d to s it in th e p a s s e n g e r s e a t. M r. D reis ask ed D ep u tyH iet ala to c all an o n -du tyu n ifo rm ed o fficer o r a s upervi s or , and he i nfor m ed D eputyH i et al a thathe had a perm i tfor , and w as carry i ng , a con ceal ed w eapo n. D epu t yH i et al a res po nd ed that“he w as a s upervi s orand he di dn’ tneed t o cal l any one, ” i d. at62, and that“maki ng t hat stat em en t [reg ard ing the c o n ce aled w ea p o n ] w as a n ‘assa u lto n a p ea ce o fficer, ’” i d. at12. “[M r . ] D r ei s di d notbel i eve H i et al a t o be a true pea ce offi cer. . . . ” Id. a t 1 3 . A n d b e c a u se M r. D re is d id n o t w a n t D e p u tyH ieta la to g a in a c c e ss to h is c o n c e a led w e a p o n a n d “ u s[ e ] it o n h im ,” h e re f u se d to c o o p e ra te w ith D e p u ty H i et al a’ s r eques tt hathe “tur n hi s back . . . and pl ace hi s hands behi nd hi m . ” Id. D ur i ng t he conf

r ont at i on, D eputyH i et al a gr abbed a tM r . D r ei s ’ s coat , pul l ed and s hoved hi m , and hi thi m i n t he che s tw i t h t he pal m of hi s hand “[ f] i ve ors i x” tim e s . Id. at63. W hen an on- dut ypol i ce offi cerarr i ved, D eputyH i et al a t ol d hi m t o “‘ H ook [D r ei s ] up, ’ ” id . at 13 . M r. D reis vo lun tari lysu b m itted to the u n ifo rm ed o fficer’s handcuffi ng and t ol d hi m , “‘ I have a conce al ed w eapon a nd a perm i tt o carr yi t . ’ ” Id. at66. A ft ert he off i cerhandcuffed M r . D r ei s , D eputyH i et al a “pul l ed [ M r.] D re is to th e sid e w a lk [ b y ] th e h a n d c u ffs” a n d th e n “ ro u g h lyra ise d [ h is handcuffed] hands hi gh i n t he ai rbehi nd hi m , brui s i ng hi s w r i s t s . . . . ” Id. a t 1 4 . W h i l e M r . Dr e i s ’ s h a n d s we r e s t i l l i n t h e a i r , De p u t yHi e t a l a s e a r c h e d h i m,-4-

jer k in g m o n e yf

ro m h is p a n ts p o c k e t w ith su fficie n t fo rc e to tea r se v e ra l b ill s in h a lf. M r. D re is ’s g u n w a s s e iz e d a n d w a s n o t r e tu rn e d to h im fo r t w o y e a rs . II. M r . D r ei s fi l ed thi s act i on pur s uantt o 42 U . S. C . § 1983, al l egi ng s i x cl ai m s forr el i ef: ( 1) unr eas onabl e s ear ch and s ei zur e; ( 2) fai l ur e t o be i nfor m ed of the natur e and c aus e of the ac cus at i on agai ns thi m ; ( 3) us e of e xces s i ve for ce; ( 4) puni s hm entw i t houtt he ben efi tof a juryt ri al ; (5) t aking D rei s’ s propertyw i t ho ut due process of l aw ; and ( 6) t aki ng D r ei s ’ s pr oper t yw i t houtj us tcompensa t i on. A pl ee. B r . at3. A tt he end of t he hea r i ng on D eputyH i et al a’ s m ot i on for s um m aryj udgm ent , t he di s t r i ctcour tconcl uded thatgenui ne i s s ues of m at er i al fac tpr ecl uded the gr antof qual i fi ed i m m uni t y . T hi s i nt er l ocut or yappea l fol l ow ed. III . T hi s cour tor der ed the part i es t o br i ef the appe al abi l i t yof the di s t r i ct c o u rt ’s d e c is io n d e n y in g s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t b a s e d o n q u a lifie d im m u n ity. “O r der s deny i ng qual i fi ed i m m uni t ybefor e tr i al ar e appe al abl e onl yt o t he ext ent t heyr es ol ve abs t r acti s s ues of l aw . ” Sh ru m v . C ity o f C o w e ta , 449 F. 3d 1132, 1137 ( 10t h C i r . 2006) . A bs t r acti s s ues of l aw i ncl ude “w hatt he curr ent appl i cabl e l aw i s , w hethert hatl aw w as cl ear l yes t abl i s hed att he t i m e the o fficia l’s a c tio n o c c u rre d , an d w h e th e r th e o fficia l’s a c ts w e re o bjec tiv e ly r eas onabl e. ” C ampbel lv. Mer cer , 9 2 6 F . 2 d 9 9 0 , 9 9 1 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ). O rde rs deny i ng qual i fi ed i m m uni t ybefor e tr i al ar e noti m m edi at el yappea l abl e “w hen the-5-

q u esti o n is th e su ffici en cyo f th e e v iden ce o r th e c o rrectne ss o f th e d istri ct co u rt ’s fi ndi ngs w i t h r es pectt o a genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac t , ” Shr um , 449 F. 3d at 1 1 3 7 . S e e a lso G ro ss v . P irtle , 2 4 5 F . 3 d 1 1 5 1 , 1 1 5 6 -57 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) (“[W ]e l ack j ur i s di ct i on . . . i f ourr evi ew w oul d r equi r e s econd- gues s i ng t he di s t r i ct co u rt ’s de term ination s o f e v iden ce su ffici en cy . ”). D ep u tyH iet ala a sserts th at w e h av e jurisdicti o n o v er this i n terl o cu tory appea l as t o M r . D r ei s ’ s cl ai m s fori l l egal s ei zur e and a r r es tbeca us e the di s t r i ct cour t“pl ai nl yconcl uded both t hat( 1) O ffi cerH i et al a’ s s ei zur e and a r r es tof D reis, v iew ed in li g h t of the e v iden ce m o st fav o rab le t o D reis, v iolated D reis’s c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts a n d (2 ) th o se rig h ts w e re c lea rlye sta b lish e d .” A p lt. J u r i s d i c t i o n a l Br . a t6 . Ha v i n g c a r e f u l l yr e v i e we d t h e h e a r i n g t r a n s c r i p t , we d isag ree . T h e d istri ct co u rtd id n o t determ ine w h ethe r D ep u tyH iet ala’s se izure a n d a rre st o f

M r. D re is v io late d M r. D re is’s c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts. R a th e r, it c o n c lu d e d : O ne, i ti s di s put ed, and the r ecor d does notl end i t s el f t o a fi ndi ng as a mat t erof l aw , t hatt he deputyi dent i fi ed hi m s el f i n s uch a w ayt hat a r eas onabl e man i n M r . D r ei s ’ [s ] pos i t i on w oul d have know n w hen t he deputys ai d, “Y ou ar e underarr es t , ” thathe w as bei ng arr es t ed by a pol i ce offi cer . I t hi nk t hati s a fa ctual i s s ue w hetheri tw as r e a s o n a b l e fo rM r . Dr e i s t o n o tr e c o g n i z e h i m. Secondl y , t her e i s t he ques t i on of the pr obabl e ca us e fort he arr es t . T her e i s al m os tno evi dence i n t hi s r ecor d t hatt el l s m e one w ayort he otherw hethert he pr obabl e ca us e s t at ementi s t rue. T hat i s par t i cul ar l ys i gni fi canti n vi ew of the fa ctt hatt he ques t i on of w hetherM r. D rei s can be sai d to l egall yhav e res i st ed arr est-6-

know i ngl yw hen al l t he ci r cumst ance s underw hi ch thi s arr es tw as m ad e a re n o t cl ea r. A pl t . A pp. at178. Fur t her , t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s obs er vat i on t hat“i tw oul d appea r undert he ci r cumst ance s of thi s cas e thatt he l aw w as cl ear l yes t abl i s hed r egar di ng t hi s s or tof s i tuat i on, ” i d. a t 1 7 9 , d o e s n o t m a k e “ e v id e n t,” a s D e p u tyH ieta la c o n ten d s, th a t th e d istric t concluded that D ep u tyH iet ala h ad v iolated M r. D reis’s con st i tuti on al ri gh t s, A plt . Juri sdi ct i on al B r. at6. T he d i stri ctcou rtdid not s o hol d. I ndeed, t he court ’ s verynextw or ds bel i e D eputyH i et al a’ s char act er i zat i on o f th e c o u rt’s o ra l ru lin g . R e a d in its e n tirety , the c o u rt’s s tate m e n t w a s:

A s fa r a s th e o th e r ste p s in q u a lifie d im m u n ity , ce rta in lyit w oul d appea rundert he ci r cumst ance s of thi s cas e thatt he l aw w as cl ear l yes t abl i s hed r egar di ng t hi s s or tof s i tuat i on. B ut, agai n, becaus e of

the pauci t

y of the r ecor d, I

cannots ay . A n d I reall yd o n ’t know w hetheri f a mi s t ake w as m ade byt he deputy , w hethert hat m is ta k e w a s re a s o n a b le . A p lt . A p p . at 17 9 (em p h asis ad d ed ). D epu t yH i et al a al so argues t hat, view i ng t he fa ct s i n the l i gh tm ost fa v o ra b le to M r. D re is , h e d id n o t ille g a lly se iz e o r a rr e s t M r. D re is . See, e. g. , A pl t . O peni ng B r . at12- 16. W hi l e i ti s t rue thata di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deni al of qual i fi ed i m m uni t yi s i m m edi at el yappea l abl e i f a de fenda nt ’ s appea l “i s bas ed on t he ar gum entt hat , even unde rt he pl ai nt i ff’ s ver s i on of the fa ct s , t he defendant di d notvi ol at e cl ear l yes t abl i s hed l aw , ” Jo h n so n v . Ma rtin , 195 F. 3d 1208, 1214 (10t h C i r. 19 99 ), D epu t yH i et al a om i t s const i tuti on al l ysal i ent fact s. B ecause D eputyH i et al a omi t s s al i entfac t s , he fa i l s t o demonst r at e that , on t he fa ct s as-7-

a lleg e d b yM r. D re is, D e p u tyH ieta la’ s s e izu re a n d a rre st d id n o t v io late M r. D rei s’ s const i tuti on al ri gh t s. D ep u tyH iet ala n ex t asserts th at w e h av e jurisdicti o n o v er this i n terl o cu tory app eal as t o M r. D rei s’ s cl ai m for excessi ve fo rce despi t e t he “d i stri ctcou rt [’s ] fa il [u re] to co n d u ct a p rop er q u ali fied im m u n ityan aly sis w ith resp ec t t o D reis’s exce s s i ve for ce c l ai m , ” A pl t . J ur i s di ct i onal B r . at11. W e di s agr ee. W i t h r es pect t o exce s s i ve for ce, t he di s t r i ctcour tfound di s put ed i s s ues pr ecl uded the gr antof q u a lifie d im m u n ity . S p e c ifica lly , itsta ted :

T h ir d , there is a q u esti o n o f e x ce ssive fo rce . . . . [T ]his rec o rd is a lm o st d e v o id o f

a n ye v id e n c e o f

w h a t w a s o bjec tiv e lyre a so n a b le i n t hi s cas e. A ccor di ng t o t he evi dence t hatI have be for e me, M r. D re is w a s s tru c k fiv e o r six tim e s d u rin g th e c o u rse o f th is i nci dent . A j ur ym i ghtfi nd t hatundert he ci r cumst ance s t o be u n r e a s o n a b l e . I s i m p l y c a n n o ts a y. A p lt. A p p . a t 1 7 8 -7 9 . B eca us e the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s concl us i on conce r ni ng exce s s i ve for ce, l i ke the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s concl us i on r egar di ng t he al l eged unl aw ful s ei zur e and a r r es tof M r . D r e i s , i s , a tb a s e , n o t h i n g m o r e t h a n a d e c i s i o n a b o u te v i d e n t i a r y s u ffi c i e n c y, w e m u s t D IS M IS S th is a p p e a l fo r l a c k o f ju ri s d ic tio n . See G ross , 245 F. 3d at 1157 ( “I f w e det erm i ne the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s concl us i on r es t s on fi ndi ngs of e v id e n c e s u ffic ie n c y , w e m u s t d is m is s fo r l a c k o f ju ri s d ic tio n .” ). E n tered fo r th e C o u rt B obbyR . B al dock C i r cui tJ udge