Hon. Virginia M. Kendall, District Judge for the Northern



District of Illinois, is sitting by designation.

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

No. 08-2365

ESTATE OF RUDY ESCOBEDO, (Deceased)

(Raquel Hanic, Personal Representative of Estate),

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

MARTIN BENDER, et al.,

Defendants-Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division.

No. 05 C 0424—Theresa L. Springmann, Judge.

ARGUED JANUARY 22, 2009—DECIDED APRIL 5, 2010

Before MANION and KANNE, Circuit Judges, and

KENDALL, District Judge.

KENDALL, District Judge. Raquel Hanic, the personal

representative of the estate of Rudy Escobedo (“the Es-
2 No. 08-2365

tate”), filed suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Indiana

state law against the City of Fort Wayne and against

individual members of the Fort Wayne Police Department.

Hanic asserted that the individual officers used excessive force against Escobedo when they deployed tear

gas into his apartment in an attempt to extricate him

from the unit where he had isolated himself threatening

to commit suicide. After refusing to come out, the officers

used additional tear gas and flash bang grenades to

enter the apartment, setting fire to the exterior room

before throwing the flash bang grenades into the

darkened bedroom inches from Escobedo’s head rendering him blind and deaf before shooting him to death.

The Defendant Officers filed a motion for summary

judgment asserting, among other things, that they were

entitled to qualified immunity for their actions. The

district court denied the motion, in part, finding that the

officers were not entitled to qualified immunity for the

entry with the tear gas and flash bang devices. The

officers then filed this interlocutory appeal. For the following reasons, we affirm.

I. Background

We begin by setting forth the facts as the district court

found them, that is, in the light most favorable to the

Estate. See Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 319-20 (1995);

see also Jewett v. Anders, 521 F.3d 818, 822 (7th Cir.

2008) (Appellate court’s review of a denial of qualified

immunity is framed either by the facts as assumed by the

district court or by the facts as set forth by the plaintiff).
No. 08-2365 3

On July 19, 2005, at 4:24 a.m., Rudy Escobedo (“Escobedo”)

dialed 911. He told the dispatcher that he was armed

with a gun and wanted to shoot himself. He also told

the dispatcher that he was high on cocaine. During the

911 call, Escobedo asked the dispatcher to contact his

psychologist and he provided the dispatcher with the

psychologist’s phone number. Throughout the conversation, Escobedo expressed that he was seeking help and

that he desperately needed to talk to someone. Escobedo

stated that while he was contemplating killing himself,

he had no intention of harming anyone else including

the police. Escobedo never made any explicit threats to

the police or other persons during the call stating instead,

“I’m not going to hurt anybody”; and “I just want help.”

In summarizing the overall tone of the 911 call, the

district court made the factual determination that

Escobedo was in despair about his drug addiction and

his life in general and was suicidal.

Sergeant C.M. Taylor (“Taylor”) (not a defendant in the

present lawsuit) was the first officer to speak with

Escobedo after the 911 call via his personal cell phone.

Taylor called Escobedo at 4:55 a.m. and Escobedo

informed him that he was armed and planned to commit

suicide. After approximately twenty-five minutes, Taylor

decided to contact the Crisis Response Team (“CRT”) and

the Emergency Response Team (“ERT”) to respond to the

situation.

Once the CRT and ERT arrived, Taylor transferred the

phone call with Escobedo to Bernard Ebetino (“Ebetino”),

a negotiator for CRT. Ebetino took over negotiations
4 No. 08-2365

with Escobedo at 5:42 a.m. Escobedo repeated that he

was suicidal and armed, asked again to speak with his

psychologist and said that he wanted help and medicine

for his drug addiction. At 6:23 a.m., the CRT began using

a “direct link phone system,” a device that allowed

several other officers on the seventh floor to listen to

the conversation between Escobedo and Ebetino; however, the CRT did not follow protocol for handling the

systematic overview of negotiations in that the CRT

commander relied on information from officers near

the mobile direct link phone system. Normal procedures

called for the CRT commander to listen to the negotiations via the direct link system. As a result, the CRT

commander did not always learn about important information and accordingly could not inform the scene commander and the ERT commander about such information.

For instance, as the district court pointed out, the CRT

commander did not recall hearing or learning that

Escobedo had removed objects from his apartment door,

something that would have been considered a sign

of progress.

When this switch was made, Ebetino stopped using

Taylor’s cell phone and began using another officer’s

personal cell phone. Taylor’s cell phone was not used

again during the incident. There is no evidence in the

record that Escobedo was told of the change of phones

or given the new phone number in case the call was

terminated. In fact, after the initial round of tear gas

was fired into Escobedo’s apartment, the record

indicates that Escobedo attempted to call Taylor’s cell

phone multiple times with no success. Escobedo’s com-
No. 08-2365 5

ments to Ebetino continued to include threats of suicide

and a fear of being killed by the police. At times, the

conversation took a positive turn and Ebetino believed

Escobedo was close to surrendering. But Escobedo

would always return to comments about suicide, fear

of being killed by the police and his addiction. At one

point, Ebetino told Escobedo that the police were trying

to contact his psychologist and bring him to the scene

so Escobedo could talk to him when he left his apartment.

Eventually, Sergeant Kevin Hunter (“Hunter”), head of

the CRT, spoke with Escobedo’s psychologist but never

invited him to the scene or asked him to assist. Hunter

recalls that the psychologist told him that he did not

think that Escobedo had a history of using weapons or

attempting suicide.

Ebetino testified that during the negotiations, Escobedo

did not make or constitute a threat to the police or to the

public, except “the only indication . . . was when he said

he wanted to come out of his apartment with the gun.”

This statement occurred at 8:28 a.m., which was after

supervisors decided, at about 8 a.m. to fire tear gas into

Escobedo’s apartment and then make entry. At some

moments, Ebetino believed Escobedo was barricading

his door and at other moments it sounded as if Escobedo

was removing the barricade by the door. At 7:27 a.m. he

thought that Escobedo was removing the barricade

from the door and he assumed (wrongfully) that this

information was communicated to the commanders.

During the course of negotiations, Hunter, Lieutenant

Kevin Zelt (“Zelt”) (head of ERT), and Deputy Chief
6 No. 08-2365

Martin Bender (“Bender”) (commander of the scene)

discussed using tear gas against Escobedo. Bender had

overall authority over the incident and scene, but relied on

Zelt to choose the tactics against Escobedo and on Hunter

for information regarding the negotiations. Hunter had

to rely on information from other CRT members to

supply to Bender. As mentioned previously, normal

procedures call for Hunter to listen to negotiations via

the direct link system, but he did not do so. At some

point between 6:45 and 8 a.m. the idea of using tear gas

was first broached. Bender later testified that the key

factor in his decision to use tear gas on Escobedo was

that by 8 a.m., “it was our belief that the negotiations

were not going anywhere,” pedestrian and vehicle

traffic was increasing in the area, and Hunter had told

him that Ebetino heard noises suggesting that Escobedo

was barricading his apartment. Although Bender was not

told that Escobedo had expressed that he was not going

to hurt the police or anyone else, Bender believed that

Escobedo was a threat to the public because of “the mere

fact that he was armed with a weapon and threatening

to commit suicide.”

Zelt first suggested using tear gas against Escobedo as

a “standard procedure” and “the next logical step” when

communications or negotiations with a person are not

succeeding and Escobedo was barricading and fortifying

his position. Although Zelt stated that he believed

Escobedo had made threats of some kind, the district

court found that it was not clear that Zelt believed this

at the time of the incident or formed that opinion afterwards. Regardless, Zelt could not identify any state-
No. 08-2365 7

ment Escobedo made that Zelt knew of at the time of the

stand-off that constituted an explicit threat to the police

or public. Bender also acknowledged that Escobedo had

not committed any crime by the point in time that the

tear gas was deployed. Zelt stated that the purpose

of forcing Escobedo from his apartment with tear

gas was not to arrest him but to take him into custody

for a 24-hour emergency mental health detention. Zelt

indicated that the decision to introduce tear gas was also

motivated by his concern that his officers’ readiness

was deteriorating because it was hot outside. He chose

8:30 a.m. as the deadline for negotiations because he

thought it was important to introduce the tear gas

before the peak downtown hour although he was aware

that most people working downtown were already at

work by 8:30 a.m. Hunter concurred with Zelt’s decision

to use tear gas, focusing on the potential danger to the

increasing number of persons who would be in the downtown area and near the hospital that was across the

street from Escobedo’s apartment building. Deputy

Chief Douglas Lucker (“Lucker”) was also on the scene

at various points and participated in discussions with

Bender, Zelt, and Hunter on the use of tear gas to

force Escobedo from his apartment.

The district court also considered the testimony of

Larry Danaher (“Danaher”), the Estate’s expert in police

practices. Danaher stated that based on his case review,

Escobedo did not pose a threat to officers or the public

that required the use of force and that the use of force

was premature and based on flawed priorities. Danaher

also said that he is familiar with enough traffic in Fort
8 No. 08-2365

Wayne to know it could have been rerouted with minimal inconvenience, and that traffic concerns should not

have played a role in the decision to use force.

After learning that the police would deploy tear gas

against Escobedo, Ebetino continued to negotiate. The

police did not inform Escobedo of the plan to deploy gas

against him. At 8:28 a.m., Escobedo told Ebetino he

was going to come out of the apartment but was going

to bring the gun with him. At 8:30 a.m., Escobedo again

conveyed that he would come out of his apartment in

three minutes. Ebetino conveyed to fellow members of

the CRT that he wanted another three minutes to

negotiate with Escobedo. Ebetino did not ask for more

time beyond that three minute reprieve, and he did not

ask other members of the CRT to inform the commanders

that Escobedo would surrender if Ebetino were given

more time to negotiate. After those three minutes elapsed,

Ebetino believed that Escobedo was not going to come out.

As the police prepared to fire tear gas grenades into the

apartment, Ebetino was told by one of the commanders

at the scene to wind down the conversation with

Escobedo. Hunter testified that Ebetino ended his phone

call with Escobedo before the gas was deployed and

that this was not in accordance with normal procedures.

As the deadline approached, the ERT officers put on

their gas masks. Sergeant Tim Selvia (“Selvia”), who led

the ERT entry team, stated that wearing the gas mask

makes it difficult to communicate because it muffles

one’s voice. Danaher stated that gas masks distort officers’ voices and make commands sound distorted

and sometimes indecipherable.
No. 08-2365 9

Zelt calculated what he thought would be an “incapacitating concentration” of chemicals for Escobedo’s apartment. He chose six .37 millimeter liquid rounds, six .37

millimeter Sage powder, and five or ten .12 gauge munitions. At 8:33 a.m., Officer Brian Martin (“Martin”) and

two other officers fired the tear gas rounds into the windows of Escobedo’s apartment. After the first round of

tear gas was fired, police waited about ten minutes

before Zelt ordered officers to fire the second round of

chemical agents into Escobedo’s apartment. According

to Ebetino, after the first round of tear gas had been

fired, the fumes became too strong for him to continue

negotiating with Escobedo, forcing him and other CRT

members to leave the seventh floor of Escobedo’s apartment building without their communication equipment. This cut off all communication with Escobedo. Zelt

stated that it is not standard for a negotiator to leave the

scene after chemical agents or gas are used against a

subject, but it occurred here because Ebetino’s point of

negotiation was unusually close to Escobedo’s apartment, and Ebetino did not have a gas mask. While the tear

gas rounds were being fired into Escobedo’s apartment,

Escobedo tried to call Officer Taylor’s cell phone, the

phone that was originally used to communicate with him.

Escobedo attempted to contact the police five times: at

8:34 a.m., 8:36 a.m., 8:39 a.m., 8:43 a.m., and 8:45 a.m.

After all of the chemical rounds had been fired, there

was twelve times the incapacitating concentration of tear

gas in Escobedo’s apartment. Danaher said that amount

“was clearly and obviously excessive.”
10 No. 08-2365

After the second round of tear gas was fired into

Escobedo’s apartment, police waited another ten minutes

and then decided to breach the apartment door and deploy

“clear out” canisters containing more tear gas. The ERT

entry team included Officers Selvia, Martin, Jason Brown

(“Brown”), and Scott Straub (“Straub”). All of the

officers, except for Brown, were armed with MP5 submachine guns, a Glock handgun, or both. Brown was carrying

a shoulder-fired weapon that shoots beanbag rounds

meant to stun or disable a person. After using a ram to

open the door, the officers threw a “clear out” canister of

tear gas, waited a few minutes and then, after receiving

no response, threw a second canister of tear gas. After

still receiving no response, the ERT team prepared to

enter the apartment. Upon entering Escobedo’s apartment the ERT team threw a flash bang grenade. When

the flash bang grenade explodes, it yields an intense

light and extremely loud sound. The explosion from the

flash bang grenade ignited the propellant of a tear gas

canister and started a fire in Escobedo’s apartment. The

ERT team extinguished the fire once inside the apartment. After realizing that no one was in the main room

or the kitchen, the ERT team determined Escobedo was

in the bedroom. They yelled for him to surrender but

received no response. At this point, the officers took a

ram and began to force the bedroom door open. As the

officers worked to push the door open, they heard

Escobedo yell several times that he had a gun and that it

was pointed at his own head. Once the officers were

able to get the door slightly open, they threw a flash bang

grenade into the bedroom. The room was “pitch black”
No. 08-2365 11

when the flash bang was thrown into the room. The flash

bang grenade exploded in the front of, or just inside, the

bedroom closet where Escobedo was located. The door

eventually broke, and all of the officers entered the bedroom. Escobedo continued to yell that he had a gun

and that it was pointed at his own head. The officers

eventually located Escobedo, who was sitting on the

floor of the closet with a gun pointed upside down at his

own head. Martin ordered Escobedo to drop the gun and

when Escobedo began to lower the gun, Martin fired

because he was in fear of his own life. When Brown

heard Martin order Escobedo to drop his gun, he too

began to fire his weapon at Escobedo in an attempt to

disarm him. Escobedo was declared dead at the scene

a short time later.

Danaher, the Estate’s expert, stated that the Officers

disregarded the danger of flash bang grenades when they

threw one into the bedroom and it exploded a few feet

from Escobedo’s head, certainly rendering him both

blind and deaf at the time he was shot.

On December 20, 2005, Raquel Hanic, as Personal

Representative of the Estate of Rudy Escobedo (“the

Estate”) filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging,

among other things, that Deputy Chief Martin Bender,

Deputy Chief Douglas Lucker, Sergeant Kevin Hunter,

Lieutenant Kevin Zelt, Officer Brian Martin, Officer

Jason Brown, Officer Scott Straub, Sergeant Tim Selvia,

Officer Derrick Westfield, Sergeant Shane Lee and

Officer Bernard Ebetino violated Escobedo’s constitutional rights by using excessive force against him when
12 No. 08-2365

they deployed tear gas and flash bang grenades during

the July 19, 2005 standoff. On January 22, 2007, Defendants

Lee and Westfield were dismissed from the case. The

remaining Defendants moved for summary judgment,

arguing in part that they were entitled to qualified immunity. The district court granted in part and denied in part

the Defendant Officers’ motion for summary judgment.

Specifically, the district court dismissed Defendant

Ebetino from the case, and granted summary judgment

for the Defendants on the Estate’s excessive force claim

against Martin and Brown for the fatal shooting of

Escobedo, the Estate’s failure to train claim, the Estate’s

warrantless entry claim, the Estate’s substantive due

process claim and the Estate’s state law wrongful death

claim. The district court denied the Defendants’ summary judgment with respect to the Estate’s excessive

force claim against Martin for firing tear gas into

Escobedo’s apartment; the Estate’s supervisory liability

claim against Bender, Lucker, Zelt, and Hunter, for the

tear gas fired into Escobedo’s apartment; the Estate’s

excessive force claim against the entry team—Selvia,

Martin, Brown, and Straub—for the raid on Escobedo’s

apartment and bedroom with tear gas and flash bang

grenades; and the supervisory liability claim against

Bender, Lucker, Zelt, and Hunter, for the entry team’s raid

on Escobedo’s apartment. In denying the summary judgment on these claims, the district court found that the

Defendant Officers were not entitled to qualified immunity. The individual officers, Bender, Lucker, Zelt,

Hunter, Martin, Selvia, Brown and Straub, now appeal

the district court’s denial of qualified immunity.
No. 08-2365 13

The Estate filed a motion for interlocutory certification 2

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) concerning issues decided in

the district court’s partial grant of Defendants’ Motion for

Summary Judgment which was granted by the district court

on September 25, 2008. On October 6, 2008, the Estate petitioned

this Court for an interlocutory appeal. See Estate of Escobedo v.

Bender, et al., Appeal No. 08-8030. On October 23, 2008, this

Court denied the Estate’s petition for interlocutory appeal. On

October 29, 2008, the Estate filed a Motion for Rehearing and

Rehearing En banc. On November 14, 2008, this Court issued an

order instructing the Clerk to distribute the petition en banc. On

April 21, 2009, this Court denied the Estate’s Petition for

Rehearing and its Petition for Rehearing En banc.

II. Discussion

A. Qualified Immunity

The only question before us on this appeal is whether,

taking the facts as the district court presented them, the

district court erred in finding that the individual officers

were not entitled to qualified immunity for their decision

to use tear gas to extricate Escobedo from his apartment

and their decision to use more tear gas and flash bang

grenades to enter his apartment. We review the district 2

court’s denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds de novo, asking whether viewing the facts

in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the defendants

were nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity as a

matter of law. See Anders, 521 F.3d at 821 (citing Sullivan

v. Ramirez, 360 F.3d 692, 696 (7th Cir. 2004)). While a

district court’s denial of summary of judgment is not

ordinarily appealable, when a district court denies sum-
14 No. 08-2365

mary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, we have

jurisdiction to consider this purely legal question. See

Leaf v. Shelnutt, 400 F.3d 1070, 1078 (7th Cir. 2005).

We start with the understanding that governmental

actors performing discretionary functions enjoy qualified

immunity and are “shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly

established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

reasonable person would have known.” Sallenger v. Oakes,

473 F.3d 731, 739 (7th Cir. 2007) (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)). Up until the day before this

case was argued, Saucier v. Katz maintained a sequential

procedure for considering whether an officer is entitled

to qualified immunity. 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001). Under

Saucier, we were required to first determine whether,

taking the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the officers’ conduct violated a constitutional right.

Id. Only if the plaintiff met that burden would we then

determine whether the particular constitutional right

was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation. Id. The Supreme Court recently reconsidered

Saucier and decided “that while the sequence set forth

[in Saucier] is often appropriate, it should no longer be

regarded as mandatory.” Pearson v. Callahan, ___ U.S. ___,

129 S.Ct. 808 (2009). Although it recognized situations

in which the Saucier approach is beneficial, the Court

concluded that the judges of the district courts and

the courts of appeals could exercise their discretion in

deciding which of the two prongs to address first. Id.

Here, the Defendants limit their argument on appeal

to the second prong of the Saucier qualified immunity
No. 08-2365 15

Defendants do make a passing reference in their opening 3

brief to the “objective reasonableness standard,” while discussing their decision to enter Escobedo’s apartment with the

use of tear gas and flash bang devices. See Appellants’ Br. at 18

(“The objective reasonableness standard does not require

that officers use alternative less intrusive means to accomplish

their objectives.”). The objective reasonableness standard is the

constitutional test for use of force considerations. See Graham v.

(continued...)

analysis, that is: whether the law was clearly established

as of July 19, 2005, that the use of tear gas and flash

bang devices in these unique circumstances violates an

individual’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from the

use of excessive force. See Appellants’ Br. at 19 n. 3 (“Although appellants remain convinced of the propriety

of their actions, they acknowledge that the issue for

review by this Court on interlocutory appeal is the second

prong of the Saucier test, whether the law was clearly

established at the time of the alleged constitutional violation.”). They do not contest the district court’s finding

that taking the facts in the light most favorable to the

Estate, a reasonable jury could find that their decision

to use tear gas and flash bang devices against Escobedo,

a suicidal, armed, barricaded person, was an excessive

use of force under the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly,

for purpose of the present appeal, we turn to the second

prong of the Saucier qualified immunity analysis and

assume that a reasonable jury could conclude that the

Defendants’ conduct violated Escobedo’s Fourth Amendment rights.3
16 No. 08-2365

(...continued) 3

Conner, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (holding objective reasonableness

standard applicable to Fourth Amendment use of force claims).

To the extent that Defendants’ language attempts to address

the first prong of the Saucier qualified immunity analysis, it is

in conflict with Defendants’ direct statement that it is seeking

review only as to the second prong of the Saucier test. Furthermore, if it was Defendants’ intention to make a substantive

argument with passing reference to the objective reasonableness standard, the argument is waived for want of development. See Estate of Moreland v. Dieter, 395 F.3d 747, 759 (7th Cir.

2005) (“perfunctory or undeveloped arguments are waived.”).

i. Clearly Established

The Defendants claim that they are entitled to qualified

immunity because the law was not clearly established on

July 19, 2005, to place them on notice that the use of tear

gas and flash bang devices in these particular circumstances was unconstitutional. The Estate has the burden

of establishing that the constitutional right at issue was

clearly established. See Boyd v. Owen, 481 F.3d 520, 526

(7th Cir. 2007); see also Koger v. Bryan, 523 F.3d 789, 802

(7th Cir. 2008) (A plaintiff seeking to defeat an assertion

of qualified immunity must establish “that the law concerning the plaintiff’s asserted right was clearly established at the time the challenged conduct occurred.”)

(internal quotations omitted). For a constitutional right

to be clearly established, its contours “must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand

that what he is doing violates that right”; however, an

official action is not protected by qualified immunity
No. 08-2365 17

only when the very action in question has previously

been held unlawful, rather the unlawfulness must be

apparent “in light of the pre-existing law.” Hope v. Pelzer,

536 U.S. 730, 739 (2002).

The Estate can demonstrate that the right was clearly

established by presenting a closely analogous case that

establishes that the Defendants’ conduct was unconstitutional or by presenting evidence that the Defendant’s

conduct was so patently violative of the constitutional

right that reasonable officials would know without guidance from a court. See Hope, 536 U.S. at 739-40; see also

Siebert v. Severino, 256 F.3d 648, 654-55 (7th Cir. 2001)

(identifying two routes for proving that a right is clearly

established: (1) the violation is so obvious that a reasonable officer would know that what he is doing

violates the Constitution; or (2) a closely analogous case

establishes that the conduct is unconstitutional).

a. Patently Obvious Constitutional Violation

When assessing whether a constitutional violation has

occurred, “[t]he Fourth Amendment inquiry is one of

‘objective reasonableness’ under the circumstances.” See

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 399 (1989). To determine

whether the force used to effect a particular seizure

is reasonable, we balance the nature and quality of the

intrusion on the individual’s rights against the “countervailing governmental interests at stake.” See id. at 395.

Factors to consider in making a determination of whether

the amount of force used to effectuate a seizure is reasonable include the severity of the crime at issue, whether
18 No. 08-2365

the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of

the officers or others, and whether he actively is resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight. See

id. at 397. Other factors include whether the individual

was under arrest or suspected of committing a crime, was

armed, or was interfering or attempting to interfere

with the officer’s execution of his or her duties. See McDonald v. Haskins, 966 F.2d 292, 292-93 (7th Cir. 1992). In the

end, the excessive force inquiry “looks to whether the

force used to seize the suspect was excessive in relation

to the danger he posed—to the community or to the arresting officers—if left unattended.” Id. at 294; see also

Estate of Starks v. Enyart, 5 F. 3d 230, 234 (7th Cir. 1993)

(finding that the amount of force that is constitutionally

permitted to execute a seizure decreases with the threat

of danger posed by the individual being seized).

Applying the Graham factors, and drawing all inferences

in favor of the Estate, the district court could reasonably

question whether the Defendant Officers had legitimate

reasons to conclude that their use of tear gas and flash

bang devices in this situation was acceptable. At the time

the officers deployed the first round of tear gas into

Escobedo’s apartment and continuing on through their

decision to deploy a second round of tear gas and then

to use more tear gas and flash bang devices to enter to

Escobedo’s apartment, Escobedo was not posing an

immediate threat to the officers or to the public,

the standoff was only three hours old, and the officers

making the tactical decisions did not have all of the

relevant and critical information regarding the negotiations. Escobedo was not resisting arrest, fleeing from the
No. 08-2365 19

police or holding hostages. While Escobedo may have

posed some level of theat or potential threat to the Defendant Officers because he was armed and under the influence of drugs, taking the facts in the light most favorable

to the Estate, he did not threaten to harm anyone

but himself. Escobedo had not committed a crime, there

were no efforts to arrest him for the commission of a

crime, and there were no warrants for his arrest. The

officers’ own reason for the deployment of the force

used was to seize Escobedo for a twenty-four-hour

mental health watch. The unreasonableness of the decision is further exacerbated by the breakdown in communication initiated by Defendants, the lack of violent

history by Escobedo (confirmed by his counselor), and

the lack of any hostages or threats to the public. This

scenario coupled with the amount of tear gas utilized by

the Defendants, twelve times the incapacitating level of

tear gas necessary, the use of flash bang devices within

the tear-gas-filled room, and the throwing of the flash

bang device into a darkened room with no knowledge of

the location of the individual inside that room could

possibly create a violation that is so patent that no

violator has even attempted to obtain an appellate

ruling on it. See Anderson v. Romero, 72 F.3d 518, 526-27 (7th

Cir. 1995) (“A constitutional violation that is so patent

that no violator has even attempted to obtain an appellate ruling on it can be regarded as clearly established

even in the absence of precedent.”).

The court need not identify this as such a case, however,

because on July 19, 2005, Defendants were properly on

notice that the use of tear gas and flash bang devices in

a closely analogous context was deemed unreasonable.
20 No. 08-2365

b. Closely Analogous Case Law

When looking at closely analogous cases to determine

if a right was clearly established at the time of the violation, we look first to controlling precedent on the issue

from the Supreme Court and to precedent from this

Circuit. In the absence of controlling precedent, we must

broaden our survey to include all relevant case law in

order to determine “whether there was such a clear

trend in the case law that we can say with fair assurance

that the recognition of the right by a controlling precedent

was merely a question of time.” Jacobs v. City of Chicago,

215 F.3d 758, 766 (7th Cir. 2000).

Finding that a right is clearly established under the

second prong of Saucier’s qualified immunity analysis is

not “predicated upon the existence of a prior case that is

directly on point.” Green v. Butler, 420 F.3d 689, 701 (7th

Cir. 2005) (internal citations omitted). “Although earlier

cases involving fundamentally similar facts can provide

especially strong support for a conclusion that the law

is clearly established, they are not necessary to such a

finding.” Hope, 536 U.S. at 741. Rather, even where there

are notable factual distinctions between the precedents

relied on and the case before the Court, if the prior decisions gave reasonable warning that the conduct at

issue violated constitutional rights they can demonstrate

clearly established law. See id. While Fourth Amendment inquiries are fact intensive, “officials can still be

on notice that their conduct violates established law even

in novel factual circumstances.” Id. Accordingly, the

salient question here is not whether there is a prior case
No. 08-2365 21

identical to the Estate’s current claim but whether the

state of the law at the relevant time gave the Defendants

fair warning that their treatment of Escobedo was unconstitutional. Green, 420 F.3d at 701.

1. Tear Gas

This Circuit has previously analyzed under what circumstances the use of tear gas and other disabling chemical agents would be constitutionally impermissible. In

Stringer v. Rowe, 616 F.2d 993 (7th Cir. 1980) and Lock v.

Jenkins, 641 F.2d 488 (7th Cir. 1981), we discussed the

constitutional limits for the use of tear gas and mace on

pre-trial detainee in confined areas. We determined that

the use of tear gas against persons confined in a jail cell

was appropriate only in rare circumstances and was not

justified when a pre-trial detainees did not constitute

an actual threat. See Lock, 641 F.2d at 496 (although a tray

could be considered a potential weapon, it was not

enough to justify use of tear gas; shouting threats to

guards was not enough to justify the use of tear gas;

engaging in a riot after attempting to escape and taking

the prison warden and others hostage was enough to

justify use of tear gas). In so holding, we looked to several

other circuits that had previously ruled that “the use of

such agents should be strictly limited to circumstances

presenting the utmost degree of danger and loss of control,” and that the “use of potentially dangerous quantities

of the substance is justified only under narrowly defined

circumstances.” Stringer, 616 F.2d at 999 (citing Spain v.

Procunier, 600 F.2d 189, 196 (9th Cir. 1979) and McCargo v.
22 No. 08-2365

Defendants argue that Marasco was decided in November 4

2005, which is after the date of the incident in this case and

therefore Marasco could not have placed the Defendants on

notice that their conduct was unlawful; however, the Third

Circuit has two opinions concerning Marasco. Compare Estate

of Smith v. Marasco, 318 F.3d 497 (3d Cir. 2003) (Marasco I), with

Estate of Smith v. Marasco, 430 F.3d 140 (3d Cir. 2005) (Marasco II).

Marasco I is discussed in this Opinion and was decided

prior to July 2005.

Mister, 462 F.Supp. 813, 819 (D. Md. 1978)). Additionally,

we specifically stated that the use of tear gas “to subdue

individual prisoners, rather than to quell large disturbances, should be more restricted.” Id.

Other circuits have also addressed the constitutional

limits of using tear gas on non-prisoners. See Jacobs, 215

F.3d at 766. In Estate of Smith v. Marasco, 318 F.3d 497 (3d

Cir. 2003), the police received a complaint which caused

4

them to go to the Smith’s house. Id. at 502. Smith was a

former Vietnam veteran and suffered from various

mental health problems including Post-Traumatic Stress

Disorder. Id. at 501-02. After arriving at Smith’s home and

receiving no response from knocking on the door, the

officers saw a red light and believed that it was a lasersighted firearm that Smith was pointing at them. Id.

After attempting to communicate with Smith, the officers

called for an ERT team. Id. The ERT team arrived with

thirty officers and numerous weapons. Id. at 503. During

the course of negotiations with Smith, the ERT team

refused to let friends or family communicate with Smith

and rejected the use of a psychologist. Id. The ERT team
No. 08-2365 23

then decided to clear Smith out of his house, and to enter

his house themselves with the use of tear gas and flash

bang grenades. Id. The Marasco court held that Smith

had proffered sufficient facts to make the question of

whether the defendant officers used excessive force

in deploying tear gas and flash bang grenades appropriate for resolution by a jury. Id. at 516. In making this

determination, the court stated that the ERT were approaching only one man, not a large group and there

were no hostages inside the house. Id. Although officers

were aware that Smith was mentally unstable and was

possibly possessing a firearm, there was no indication

that Smith had been using a gun recently or that Smith

had ever used a gun in a violent manner. Id. at 517. The

officers were not attempting to make an arrest at the

time they decided to use the tear gas and flash bang

grenades, and there was no indication in the record

that Smith had any history of violence which the

officers would have been aware of. Id. Lastly, the court

held that a jury should be allowed to hear the testimony

of Smith’s police expert who was of the opinion that

the officers behavior was unreasonable and unlawful. Id.

In the absence of controlling precedent from our

circuit, courts look to other circuits to ascertain whether

there was such a clear trend in the case law that the

recognition of the right by a controlling precedent was

merely a matter of time. See Cleveland-Perdue v. Brutsche,

881 F.2d 427, 431 (7th Cir. 1989). There are other decisions

from our sister circuits that are “closely analogous” to

the situation before us so as to put the Defendant Officers

on notice that their decision to use tear gas against
24 No. 08-2365

Escobedo was an unreasonable use of force See, e.g., Vinyard

v. Wilson, 311 F.3d 1340, 1349 (11th Cir. 2002) (officer

used excessive force under Graham where he pepper

sprayed a handcuffed and confined detainee); Green v.

Barber, 310 F.3d 889, 898 (6th Cir. 2002) (officers conduct

might be found to be excessive force where officer used

pepper spray on individual who was arrested for nonsevere crime and who was not threatening anyone’s

safety or attempting to evade arrest by flight even though

individual may have been actively resisting arrest and

refused to be handcuffed); Slakan v. Porter, 737 F.2d 368, 372

(4th Cir. 1984) (prison guard’s use of tear gas “unquestionably crossed the line separating necessary force from

brutality” where prisoner was locked in his cell and posed

no direct physical threat to other inmates or any of the

guards); Adams v. Metiva, 31 F.3d 375, 387 (6th Cir. 1994) (a

reasonable officer would know that spraying mace on

a potentially blinded, incapacitated individual would

violate the right to be free from excessive force).

Based on controlling precedent from this Circuit and the

clear trend in the law from our sister circuits, the

clearly established law as of July 19, 2005, established that

the use of tear gas is unreasonable when: (1) attempting

to subdue individuals as opposed to mass crowds;

(2) when the individual does not pose an actual threat;

(3) when the individual is not holding hostages; (4) when

the individual has not committed a crime and the officers

are not in the process of attempting to make an arrest;

(5) when the individual is armed but merely suicidal as

opposed to homicidal; (6) when the individual is not

attempting to evade arrest or flee from the police; and
No. 08-2365 25

(7) when the individual is incapacitated in some form.

Here, like Smith in Marasco, Escobedo was alone in his

apartment, he was not inciting a riot, making a “large

disturbance,” holding hostages or making any threats. See

Lock, 641 F.2d at 496. Like Smith, Escobedo had mental

health issues and a gun, but there was no indication that Escobedo had been using a gun recently or that

Escobedo had ever used a gun in a violent manner. Unlike

Smith, however, who allegedly pointed his gun at the

police but where the court still found that the officers’

conduct in deploying tear gas and flash bang devices

could be found to be unreasonable, Escobedo did not

point his gun at anyone but himself. When the officers

made their decision to enter the apartment, there was

no one else at risk in the apartment and the reasons

given by the officers for entering the apartment at that

time were solely traffic concerns and the depleted energy

of the officers on the scene; they were not based on

any concern that Escobedo was an imminent threat to

others. By the time the Defendants entered Escobedo’s

apartment they had already fired twelve times the incapacitating amount of tear gas into his home. The amount

of gas emanating from Escobedo’s apartment was so

strong that Officer Ebetino had to leave his station outside Escobedo’s apartment because he did not have a

gas mask. Therefore, taking the facts in the light most

favorable to the Estate, Defendant Officers would have

known that Escobedo was incapacitated inside the apartment and decided to use more tear gas and flash bang

grenades subsequent to the initial gas. The similarity of

the facts on the Marasco case and of Escobedo’s situation
26 No. 08-2365

placed the Officers on notice that their entry was possibly

unconstitutional. See Hope, 536 U.S. at 739.

The Defendants assert that these cases are insufficient

to put them on notice because they do not specifically

address the use of tear gas where the objective was to

force an armed and suicidal person from a dwelling. The

Marasco case, however, is strikingly similar and exact

similarity is not required. See Hope, 536 U.S. at 739 (An

official action is not protected by qualified immunity

only when the very action in question has previously

been held unlawful, rather the unlawfulness must be

apparent “in light of the pre-existing law.”); Chaklos v.

Stevens, 560 F.3d 705, 716 (7th Cir. 2009) (“The question is

not whether there is a prior case ‘on all fours’ with the

current claim.”); Miller v. Jones, 444 F.3d 929, 934 (7th

Cir. 2006) (for a right to be clearly established there

does not have to be a prior case with materially similar

facts; officials may still be on notice in “novel factual

circumstances.”). Based on the facts as presented to us

in the record and taking them in the light most favorable

to the Estate, we find that Defendants’ actions in

deploying an excess amount of tear gas to extricate

Escobedo, a non-threatening, non-violent, non-resisting

individual, from his apartment violated a clearly established right and therefore the Defendants are not protected by qualified immunity.

2. Flash Bang Grenades

The Defendant Officers contend that they are entitled to

qualified immunity for their decision to use flash bang
No. 08-2365 27

devices to enter Escobedo’s arpartment. We have previously indicated that the use of flash bang devices should

be limited and is not appropriate in most cases. In Molina

v. Cooper, 325 F.3d 963 (7th Cir. 2003), while we found

that the officers’ use of flash bang devices during the

execution of a “high risk” search warrant—which was

obtained for Molina’s home on suspicion of drug activity—

was reasonable because Molina had a criminal history

that included aggravated assault, was alleged to be the

head of a drug distribution organization, was associated

with gangs, was home and had access to a stash of weapons, we expressly stated that “we in no way suggest that

the use of flash bang devices is appropriate in every case

(or even most cases).” Id. at 966 n. 1, 973. In finding that

the officers’ deployment of flash bang devices was reasonable, we emphasized that the officers had a significant

reason to be concerned about their personal safety and

we expressly limited our holding to the circumstances

presented in that case. See id. at 973. In United States v.

Folks, 236 F.3d 384 (7th Cir. 2001), we discussed, in dicta,

the potentially serious injuries that may arise from the use

of a flash bang device during a search. We suggested

that a sufficiently careful (or perhaps reasonable) use of

a flash bang device occurs when officers take a moment

to look inside a residence or a room to ensure that no

one would be injured by the device before tossing it

and where officers carry a fire extinguisher to quickly

extinguish any fires resulting from deployment of

the device. Id. at 388 n.2. We also, in no uncertain

terms, pointed out that the use of a flash bang device

is justified when “potentially violent people [can] be
28 No. 08-2365

found in [a] house,” as opposed to individuals who

pose no threat to the police or others. Id. at 388 n. 2 (emphasis added). We noted that if the government does not

use discretion in when and how they use flash bang

devices, they “may [ ] risk significant damage claims

from the careless deployment of flash-bang devices.” Id.

In United States v. Morris, 349 F.3d 1009 (7th Cir. 2003),

we explicitly stated that this Court has “often emphasized the dangerous nature of flash-bang devices and has

cautioned that the use of such devices in close proximity

to suspects may not be reasonable.” Id. at 1012. (Emphasis

added). We suggested, also in dicta, that the use of a

flash bang grenade is reasonable only when there is a

dangerous suspect and a dangerous entry point for the

police, when the police have checked to see if innocent

individuals are around before deploying the device, when

the police have visually inspected the area where the

device will be used and when the police carry a fire

extinguisher. See id. at 1012 n. 1.

We also discussed the appropriateness of using flash

bang devices in United States v. Jones, 214 F.3d 836, 837-38

(7th Cir. 2000). In Jones, we were disturbed by the

officers use of flash bang devices and stated that while

the district court found their conduct to be reasonable,

we were less certain. Id. Specifically, we unambiguously

stated that “police cannot automatically throw bombs

into drug dealers’ houses, even if the bomb goes by

the euphemism ‘flash-bang device’,” particularly where

they do not believe the drug dealer is an unusually dangerous individual. Id. We found this to be true even

though guns are normally used in the drug trade and even
No. 08-2365 29

where a drug dealer has a prior weapons offense. Id.

Lastly, while Jones was a criminal case that discussed

the use of flash bangs in the context of suppressing evidence, we specifically stated that “[i]f this were a

damages action seeking compensation for injury to the

occupants or to the door, the claim would be a serious

one.” Id.

Other circuits have similarly considered the constitutional limits of using a flash bang device. See, e.g., Boyd v.

Benton County, 374 F.3d 773, 777-79 (9th Cir. 2004) (use of

flash bang device unconstitutional use of excessive

force where police deployed it without either looking or

sounding a warning when there were innocent

individuals in a room as well as suspected robbers).

Additionally, the court in Estate of Smith v. Marasco, 318

F.3d 497, 515-18 (3d Cir. 2003), previously mentioned

above, discussed the use of flash bang grenades to enter

an individual’s home where the purpose was not to

arrest him and where the individual was non-threatening,

mentally unstable and suicidal. The Marasco court determined that a reasonable jury could find that the

defendant officers’ conduct was unreasonable and excessive under the Fourth Amendment. Id.

Here, the Defendants first deployed a flash bang

grenade as the ERT team made its entry into Escobedo’s

apartment. The record reflects that the Defendant

Officers had no idea where Escobedo was located when

they threw the first flash bang into his apartment. Additionally, there is no evidence that the officers visually

inspected the area before throwing the flash bang device
30 No. 08-2365

or that they looked inside, even ever so slightly, to see if

anyone else was present that may be injured by the

flash bang. The second flash bang device was deployed

when the Defendants entered Escobedo’s bedroom. The

Defendants were only able to force the door open

slightly and the room was “pitch black” when they

threw the flash bang grenade. The flash bang device

landed next to Escobedo’s head when it exploded. The

record reflects that Escobedo was blind and deaf when

the officers entered his bedroom as a result of the location of the explosion in proximity to his head. Additionally, the Estate’s police expert testified that a flash bang

grenade should be placed in a room, not thrown or

tossed, so as to prevent it from landing in an unintended

location.

There is no evidence that the Defendant Officers were

carrying a fire extinguisher even though they had previously deployed tear gas accelerants into Escobedo’s

apartment and, in fact, the initial flash bang device set a

fire in Escobedo’s apartment because it hit a tear gas

canister. Furthermore, as stated previously, drawing all

inferences in favor of the Estate, Escobedo was not considered to be a violent, dangerous individual, he was not

the subject of an arrest and he did not pose an immediate

threat to the police or others. The fact that Escobedo was

in possession of a gun does not provide support for

the Defendants that their use of flash bang devices was

reasonable. See Jones, 214 F.3d at 837-38.

On these facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the

Estate, the law points only in one direction: the use of the
No. 08-2365 31

flash bang devices in this case was an unreasonable use

of force to which qualified immunity does not apply. As

discussed above, through the use of “lucid and unambiguous” dicta, see Hanes v. Zurick, 578 F.3d 491, 496 (7th Cir.

2009), we have repeatedly expressed our concern with

the overuse of flash bang devices, especially where the

circumstances do not warrant such extreme measures.

This is because flash bang devices are essentially

grenades and can be very dangerous and destructive.

Despite the absence of a great deal of precedent in this

area, the pertinent holdings and dicta do show a clear

trend in the law that addresses the egregious circumstances of this case; even if the contours of the constitutional implications of the use of “flash bang” devices in

general is not clear, it is abundantly clear that this case

arises in precisely the circumstances that this Court and

other circuits have sought to avoid by providing

detailed guidance on when the use of flash bang devices

is (and is not) appropriate under the Constitution. See

Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987) (even dicta

may clearly establish a right); see also Hanes, 578 F.3d at

496. If this were a borderline case, perhaps the relative

paucity of judicial holdings forbidding the use of flash

bang devices as compared to other more fully developed

areas of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence would counsel

in favor of a generous application of qualified immunity.

However, on the facts of this case, the officers’ conduct

in the use of the flash bang devices so clearly exceeded

the bounds of reasonableness in the circumstances that

it cannot be said to lie near the “hazy border between

excessive and acceptable force” along which qualified
32 No. 08-2365

immunity shields officers from liability for their snap

judgments, if those judgments prove to be wrong upon

further reflection.

Based on the pre-existing case law, it was clearly established as of July 19, 2005, that throwing a flash bang device

blindly into an apartment where there are accelerants,

without a fire extinguisher, and where the individual

attempting to be seized is not an unusually dangerous

individual, is not the subject of an arrest, and has not

threatened to harm anyone but himself, is an unreasonable use of force. Therefore, taking the facts as presented to us from the district court, the Defendants

are not entitled to qualified immunity and the issue of

the officers’ decisions must be presented to a jury.

III. Conclusion

The district court did not err in denying Defendants’

Motion for Summary Judgment based on qualified immunity. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the decision of the district

court.
No. 08-2365 33

Commonly used by law enforcement, flash-bang devices are 1

non-lethal distraction tools that “generate a loud explosion and

a brilliant flash that disorient suspects.” See “police::explosives,”

http://www.search.eb.com/eb/article-260942 (last visited January 29, 2010). 

MANION, Circuit Judge, concurring in the judgment

in part and dissenting in part. What started out as

a seemingly routine response to Rudy Escobedo’s

911 call threatening his own suicide descended into an

unfortunate and certainly disturbing result. In hindsight,

at least, the response to his threat likely should not

have gone much beyond the telephone negotiations

initiated by Sergeant Taylor and continued by Officer

Ebetino. However, communications eventually broke

down and what appears to have been an unnecessary

assault with the tear gas and flash-bang devices ensued. 1

Although I question whether the cases cited by the

court clearly established that the officers’ use of tear gas

violated the Fourth Amendment, I do believe that reasonable officials would have known that using twelve

times the incapacitating quantity of tear gas to extricate

a person at home alone who had only threatened to

harm himself and was not suspected of committing

a crime “was unconstitutional without guidance from

courts.” Gossmeyer v. McDonald, 128 F.3d 481, 496 (7th Cir.

1997). For that reason, I concur with the court’s conclusion that the defendants’ use of tear gas was not protected by qualified immunity.

I disagree, however, with the court’s conclusion that the

defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity for
34 No. 08-2365

their use of the flash-bang devices. The majority opinion

holds that on the date of the incident it was clearly established that the defendants’ employment of the flash-bang

devices was an excessive use of force. In reaching its

conclusion, the court relies upon six cases that involved

the use of such devices by law enforcement. But as explained below, those cases neither separately nor collectively clearly established that the defendants’ conduct

was unconstitutional. And because the defendants’ use of

the flash-bang devices—unlike their use of the tear

gas—was not obviously in violation of the decedent’s

constitutional rights, they are entitled to qualified immunity on this issue.

The first of the four cases from this circuit cited in the

majority opinion is Molina v. Cooper, 325 F.3d 963 (7th Cir.

2003)—an excessive force case. There, while executing

a search warrant, police used flash-bang devices in entering a basement because they believed a suspect with a

criminal record that included an aggravated assault was

at home and had access to weapons. Id. at 973. The

officers believed that no one other than Molina was in

the house and “had ample reason to be concerned about

their personal safety.” Id. Although we were careful to

not suggest “that the use of flash bang devices is appropriate in every case (or even most cases),” we held that

the use of the devices “was reasonable under the circumstances” and did not constitute excessive force. Id.

Molina is the most relevant case for the issue confronting us because it is from this circuit, it is an excessive force case involving flash-bang devices, and the discussion of the propriety of using such devices was not
No. 08-2365 35

dicta. Unfortunately, the court substantially discounts the

case by saying that Molina “expressly limited [its] holding

to the circumstances presented.” Ante, at 27. But nearly

all excessive force cases are fact-specific and contextdependent, Scott v. Edinburg, 346 F.3d 752, 756 (7th Cir.

2003), and that does not limit the relevance of such cases

in qualified immunity analyses. Molina speaks for itself:

where police are executing a search warrant and believe

that a person with a record of aggravated assault is at

home alone with access to weapons, the use of flashbang devices is appropriate. 325 F.3d at 973. Here, as in

Molina, no one else was present in the dwelling where the

police used flash-bang devices to incapacitate a person

who possessed a weapon. But this case is not on all fours

with Molina, mainly because Escobedo had no history

of aggravated assault and the defendants were not executing a search warrant. Nevertheless, Molina’s relevance

to the qualified immunity analysis here is significant

and should be recognized as the leading authority in

this circuit.

The court should not simply confine Molina to its facts

and then derive “detailed guidance” from what it calls

“ ‘lucid and unambiguous’ dicta” in three evidence suppression cases from this circuit. Ante, at 31. In those

three cases, the statements that were critical of the

police’s use of flash-bang devices were dicta—as the

majority opinion rightly recognizes. Although we have

stated that in limited circumstances dicta can clearly

establish the existence of a constitutional right, the dicta

must be “lucid and unambiguous,” as when a court

observes that certain conduct violates a constitutional

right but ultimately holds that the right was not clearly
36 No. 08-2365

established. Hanes v. Zurick, 578 F.3d 491, 496 (7th Cir.

2009). The dicta in those three cases does not come close

to meeting that high standard: in none of them did we

conclude that the use of flash-bang devices constituted

excessive force.

In United States v. Jones, 214 F.3d 836 (7th Cir. 2000),

the defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence that was obtained by police during a noknock entry into his dwelling using a battering ram and

a flash-bang device. We chastised the police’s use of

the flash-bang device because (unlike here) an innocent

adult and child were inside the apartment. Id. at 838. The

district court had held that the officers’ conduct was

reasonable in all respects; we said we were “less certain,”

although we did not say that the district court was

wrong. Id. at 837. We also stated that “police cannot

automatically” employ flash-bang devices just because

they are entering the house of a drug dealer. Id. (emphasis

added). That proposition is unremarkable and in fact

implies that such devices are appropriate in some situations. In addition, we noted that were the action one for

personal injury it “would be a serious one”; but Jones

was not a personal injury action, “so whether one would

succeed is not something we need[ed to] decide.” Id. at 838.

In United States v. Folks, 236 F.3d 384 (7th Cir. 2001), a

suppression case similar to Jones, the defendant appealed

the denial of his motion to suppress evidence from a

dwelling search where the police used a flash-bang

device in an unlit residence at night. After quickly looking

inside, the officers deployed the device, and when they

entered they encountered an armed man and the defen-
No. 08-2365 37

The court also suggests that Folks is unlike this case because 2

there were potentially violent people present there. Ante, at 27-

28, 30. In doing so, the court appears to define violent persons as

only those who pose a threat to police or others. A person who

is high on cocaine, has a gun, and is threatening to kill himself

is certainly a potentially violent individual. Police cannot be

expected to assume that when they encounter such a person,

he poses no threat of violence to them merely because he

has not previously expressly threatened them or others.

dant. Id. at 387. The court determined that the evidence

was admissible under the inevitable discovery doctrine

but acknowledged the serious damage flash-bang

devices can cause, observing that “[t]he government may

thus risk significant claims from the careless deployment

of flash-bang devices.” Id. at 388. But focusing on the

specific facts of the case, the court concluded that the

police’s use of a flash-bang device was sufficiently

careful because the officers had looked into the residence

before tossing the devices and had carried a fire extinguisher to put out any resulting fires. Id. at n.2. The use

of the device was justified, we thought, because the

police’s suspicions that potentially violent people might

be at home were confirmed. Id. We did not suggest,

however, that not using the same cautious measures

would necessarily be an excessive use of force. Yet here,

the court lists the sufficient precautionary actions the

police took in Folks and treats them as if they are necessary

measures for the proper use of flash-bang devices. Ante,

2

at 27, 29-30.

And in United States v. Morris, 349 F.3d 1009 (7th Cir.

2003), the defendant attempted to suppress weapons
38 No. 08-2365

The court does not mention the similarities between this case 3

and Morris: as discussed below, the officers were faced with

a dangerous entry point and believed they could be encountering a dangerous person.

found during a search of his residence and his inculpatory statements because the police had unreasonably

used flash-bang devices to facilitate the search. In Morris,

we cited Jones and Folks for the manifest proposition

that flash-bang devices are dangerous. Id. at 1012. But we

also stated that the police’s use of the devices in that

case appeared to be reasonable because of the dangerous

individuals involved, the dangerous entry point for

police, and the precautionary measures the officers took:

asking whether children were present, inspecting the

area where the devices were to be employed, and carrying

a fire extinguisher. Id. at 1013 n.1. We did not suggest,

however, that the use of flash-bang devices under different and possibly less dangerous circumstances and

with fewer precautions taken by police would necessarily

be unreasonable. Still, the court treats police measures

that were sufficient to approve employment of the flashbang devices in Morris as required measures here when it

reads Morris as suggesting that “the use of a flash bang

grenade is reasonable only when there is a dangerous

suspect and a dangerous entry point for the police, when

the police have checked to see if innocent individuals are

around before deploying the device, when the police have

visually inspected the area where the device will be

used and when the police carry a fire extinguisher.” Ante,

3

at 28 (emphasis added).
No. 08-2365 39

The court also cites two cases from outside this circuit.

In Estate of Smith v. Marasco, 318 F.3d 497, 517 (3d Cir.

2003) (Marasco I), the Third Circuit concluded that the

district court erred in granting summary judgment

for the officers on the plaintiffs’ excessive force claim

because the plaintiffs had “proffered evidence sufficient

to require that the question of the reasonableness of the

[officers’] tactics be submitted to a jury.” Marasco I was not

a qualified immunity case, and the court merely held that

a jury question existed on whether the facts established

excessive force. Id. at 518. Indeed, it “recognize[d] that

a jury could conclude” that the force used “was a reasonable response to the threat the officers perceived.” Id.

at 517. Marasco I thus provides little (if any) guidance

here: a holding that a particular employment of flash-bang

devices could (or could not) be an excessive use of force

does not clearly establish anything.

The only case cited by the court that actually held that a

particular use of flash-bang devices was an excessive

application of force is Boyd v. Benton County, 374 F.3d 773

(9th Cir. 2004). There, the Ninth Circuit concluded that

throwing a flash-bang device blindly into a room

occupied by up to eight innocent bystanders and criminal suspects was unconstitutionally excessive force. Id.

at 779. Hence, in the Ninth Circuit it appears to be clearly

established that when pursuing armed suspects, the

police cannot blindly toss a flash-bang device into a

room occupied by up to eight people who were unconnected to the crime under investigation. Here, however,

in sharp and material contrast to Boyd, there were no

innocent bystanders present but only an armed, suicidal
40 No. 08-2365

individual who was high on cocaine. And the defendants’

failure to look into Escobedo’s bedroom before they

deployed the flash-bang device is not surprising: he had

barricaded the door. Moreover, in this circuit Molina

demonstrates that it is not unreasonable for police to use

flash-bang devices when they believe that the only occupant in a dwelling is armed and thus they have “ample

reason to be concerned about their personal safety.”

325 F.3d at 973. Molina—not Boyd—is the controlling

precedent, and it supplied a sound basis for the defendants’ use of the flash-bang devices. Perhaps the only

thing clear here is that the cases the court relies upon

did not give the defendants notice and it was not clearly

established that their conduct was unlawful. In my

view, and in the words of the Supreme Court,

[t]hese . . . cases taken together undoubtedly show that

this area is one in which the result depends very

much on the facts of each case. None of them

squarely governs the case here; they do suggest that

[the officers’] actions fell in the “hazy border between

excessive and acceptable force.” The cases by no means

“clearly establish” that [their] conduct violated the

Fourth Amendment.

Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194, 201 (2004) (per curiam)

(citation omitted).

This case is obviously not over. The question remains

whether it was reasonable for the police to go to this

extent in effect to rescue a man who was threatening

suicide. I assume the building had been cleared of other

occupants (given the extensive tear gas use, anyone
No. 08-2365 41

remaining would have likely exited on their own accord).

Once communications broke down and the SWAT team

arrived, the officers in charge thought it was necessary

to employ these extreme resources when the only apparent threat was that of Escobedo to himself. Once the

place was saturated with tear gas and the four officers

were ordered to enter the apartment, a new scenario

involving the use of flash-bang devices emerged. In

order to determine what is reasonable under these circumstances, the conditions that existed when the four

officers reached the apartment door have to be isolated

and separated from the original decision to deploy the

SWAT team and to use what was obviously an excessive

amount of tear gas. In other words, regardless of

whether the initial assault and tear gas saturation was

reasonable, at this point the four officers were ordered to

force their way in. When they reached the door of the

apartment, they were wearing gas masks because of the

tear gas saturation. Unfortunately, this necessity limited

their vision and their hearing. They knew Escobedo was

high on drugs, was in possession of a gun, and had

refused to come out. Clearly this presented a dangerous

entry point for the officers, which may have justified

employment of the flash-bang devices. When they

reached the bedroom door that was substantially

blocked, other than to retreat, the flash-bang devices

may have been their safest option.

In conclusion, the law at the time of the incident did

not clearly establish that the defendants’ employment of

flash-bang devices was an unconstitutional application

of force, nor was their use of such devices patently
42 No. 08-2365

violative of Escobedo’s Fourth Amendment rights. Therefore, I would reverse the district court’s contrary decision

and conclude that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for their employment of the flash-bang

devices.

4-5-10