H on. V ir g inia M
. K endall, D is tr ic t J ud ge f or the N orther n  Dis t ri c tofI l l i noi s , i s s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on.



## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 08

- 2365 E S T A T E OF R UD Y E S COB ED O, ( De c e a s e d) (Raq ue l H an ic, Person al Rep resen tative of Esta te), P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. M ART I N B ENDER, etal. , D efend a nts-A pp ella nts.

Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Indian a, Fo rtWayne D ivisi on. No . 05 C0424

—Th eres a L . Sp ri ngman n, Judg e.
A RG UE D J AN UA RY 22, 2009

— D ECI DE D A PRI L 5, 2010

Be f or e M ANI ON an d K ANN E , C ircu it Judges, a nd K ENDALL , D istrict Judge.  K ENDALL , D istrict Judge. RaquelH ani c, the perso nal re pr es en tat i ve ofthe est ate o fRud y Esco bedo ( “the Es-2 N o. 08

- 2365
ta te ”) , fil ed sui t pur su an t to 4 2 U. S

. C. § 1 98 3 an d I ndi an a sta te l aw ag ai nst the Ci ty ofFo rtW ayne and agai nst i nd i vi du alm em ber s o fthe For t W ayne Pol i ce Depar tm ent. H ani c as ser ted thatthe i nd i vi d u al offi cer s use d excessi ve f or ce a gai nst Esco bedo when they deploy ed tea r ga s in to h is a p ar tm en t in an at t e m p t to ex tr ica te h im f r o m the uni t wher e he ha d i so l ated him se l fthr ea te ni ng to com m it su ici d e. A fter refus ing to com e out, the offi cers used add i ti onalte arga s a nd fl ash ba ng g re nades to enterthe apart m ent, se tti ng fi re to the exter i orr oo m be f o r e th r o wi ngthe fl as h b an gg r en ades i nt o the dar k en ed be dr o o m i nc he s f r o m Es cobe do ’ s he ad r en der i nghi m b l i nd a nd de afb efo r e sh o oting hi m t o de ath. T he De f en dan t Of fi ce r s fi l ed a m o ti o n f o r s um m ary j udg m en t as se r ting, among o th er th i ng s, th at th ey w ere en ti t l e d t o q u a l i fi e d i mmun i t y f o r th e i r a c t i o n s . The di st rict cour t den i ed th e m o ti o n, i n pa r t, fi ndi ngtha t th e o ffi ce r s wer e no t en ti tl ed to qua l i fi ed i m m uni tyf o r the en tr y wi ththe t ea r g as a nd fl as h b an gde vi ce s. The offic er s t h en filed th is in te rloc u to ry a p p ea l. Fo r th e fo ll o win gr e a s o n s , w e a ffi r m.

I . B a c kg r o und W e begin by set ting forth t h e fact s as the district cou rt f o und the m , tha t i s, i n the l ight m ost f av o r ab l e to the E st at e. S e e Jo hn son v. Jon es , 515 U

. S. 304, 319-20 (1995 ); s e eal s o Je wet tv. Anders , 5 2 1 F.3d 818, 822 (7th Cir. 2008 ) ( A pp el l ate co urt’ s r evi ew o fa denia l o fqual i fi ed i m mu n i t y i s f r a me d e i th e r b y th e f a c t s a s a s s u me d b y t he d istri ct cou rt or by the facts as set fo r t h b y t he plaintiff ).N o. 08

- 2365 3 On Jul y 1 9, 20 05, at4: 24 a. m . , Rud y Esco bedo ( “Escobe do”) dial e d 9 1 1

. He t o l d the di s pa t c he r tha th e wa s ar m ed w ith a gu n an d w an te d t o s h oo t h im se lf. H e a lso to ld th e di spa tc he r tha t he was hi g h o n cocai ne . Dur i ngthe 9 11 ca ll, E sc ob ed o a sk ed th e d isp at c h er to co n ta c t h is psy ch o l o g i st an d he pr o vi ded th e di spa tc he r w ith the ps ychol ogi st’ s phone num ber

. Throughout the co nver sati o n, Es co be do e xpr es se d t ha t he was s ee k i nghe l p a nd tha th e de s pe r a tel y n e e de d t o t a l kt o s o meo ne . Es c o b e do state d that w hile he w as con tem p lati ng ki ll ing him self, he ha d no i nten ti o n o fha r m i nga ny o ne e l se i nc l udi ng the pol i ce. Escobed o neverm ade any expli ci t threa ts to the po l i c e o r o the r pe r s o ns dur i ngth e c a l l s t a t i ngi ns t e a d, “I’m n ot goin g t o h u rtan yb od y” ; an d “I j u st w an t h elp .” I n s um m ar izi ngthe o ve r al l t o ne o fthe 9 11 c al l, the dist ri ct c ourt m ade the f actualdeter m i nati on that Esc o be d o w as i n de spa i r abo uthi s dr uga ddi ct i o n a nd h is life in ge n er al a n d w as su icid al. S er g ea ntC. M
. Ta y l o r ( “T ay l o r ”) ( no t a de f en dan t i n the prese nt l aw sui t) was the fi rs t offi certo speakwith Escobedo afterthe 911 cal l vi a his p er sonalcel l phone. Ta y l o r c a l l e d E s c obe do a t4 : 5 5 a . m. a nd Es c o b e do in for m ed hi m thathe was ar m ed and planned to co m m it sui ci de. A fterapproxi m ate l y tw enty- fi ve m i nutes, Tayl or dec i ded to c o nt ac t th e Cr i si s Re spo ns e Te am ( “CRT ”) a nd th e Em er g en cy Res po ns e Te am ( “ERT ”) t o r es po nd t o the si tu at i o n. Once the CRT an d ERT ar r i ve d, Ta y l o r t r an sfer r ed th e p hon e call w ith E scob ed o to Bern ard Eb etino (“E betin o”), a ne g o ti at o r f o r CRT. Eb et i no t o o ko ve r ne g o ti at i o ns4 N o. 08

- 2365 wi thEs co be do a t 5: 42 a. m . E sc o be do r epe at ed th athe w as su icid al an d ar m ed , as ke d ag ain to sp ea k w i t h h is psy ch o l o g i stand s ai d tha t he want ed he l p a nd medi ci ne f o r hi s dr uga ddi ct i o n. At 6 : 23 a.m
. , the CRT be g anus i ng a “ dir ect l i nk phone s yst em , ” a d evi ce that a l l owed seve ra l o th er o ffi cer s o n the seve nth fl oo r to l i ste n to th e c o n v e r s a t i o n b e t we e n E s c o b e d o and E b e t i n o ; h o wev er, the C R T di d no t f o l l o w pro to co l f o r ha ndl i ngthe sy st emat i c o ve r vi ew o fne g o ti at i o ns i n tha t th e CRT com m ander r el i ed on i nfo rm ati on fro m o ffi cer s nea r the m obi l e di re ct l ink phone s yst em . N or m alpro cedures cal l ed f orthe CR T com m ander t o l i ste n to the nego ti ati o ns v i a th e di r ec t l i nks y st em. As a r es ul t, the CRT com m a n d er did not alw ays learn ab ou t im p ortan t informa t i o n a n d a c c o r d i n g l y c o u l d n o t i n f o r m th e s c e n e c o mm an derand the ERT co m m an derabo uts uchi nf o r m at i o n. F o r i ns ta nc e, a s th e di st r ict c o ur t po i nt ed o ut, the CRT com m ander di d not r ecall h ea ri ng o r l ear ni ng tha t E scob ed o had r e m oved obj ects from his apa rtm en t d oor, som ethi ng tha t would have bee n consi dered a si gn ofpro gr ess . W he n thi s swi tc h w as m ade , Eb et i no s to pped us i ng T ay l o r ’ s ce l l pho ne a nd b eg anus i nga no th ero ffi cer’s perso nal cel l phone . T ay lor ’ s ce l l phone was not used ag ain dur i ngthe i nc i den t. The r e i s no ev idence i n the re cor d that E sc ob ed o w as tol d ofthe change ofphones orgi ven the new ph one num beri n c as e th e ca l l was ter m i nated. I n f act, afterthe i ni ti alrou n d o fte arga s w a s fi red i nt o Es cobe d o’s apa rtm en t, th e record in d ica te s t h at E sc ob ed o a t t e m p te d to ca ll Ta ylo r’s ce ll p h o n e mu l t i p l e t i me s wi th n o s u c c e s s . E s c o b e d o ’ s c o m-N o. 08

- 2365 5

men t s t o Eb e t i no c o nt i nu e d t o i nc l ud e thr e a t s o fs ui c i de an d a fea r o fb eingk i l l ed bythe po l i ce . At t i m es, th e conve rs ati on t oo k a posi ti ve turn a nd Ebeti no be l i eve d Es c o b e do wa s c l o s e t o s ur r e nd e r i ng . Bu tEs c o b edo w oul d al w ays r etur n to co m m ents abo ut sui ci de, fear o fb eingk i l l ed b y the po l i ce a nd hi s addi ct i o n. At o ne po i nt, Eb et i no t o l d Es co bed o tha t th e po l i ce wer e tr y i ng to c o nt ac t hi s psy ch o l o g i sta nd b r i nghi m t o the s ce ne so Escobedo coul d t al k t o hi m wh en he l eft hi s a partm ent. Eventual l y, S er gean t K evi n H unter ( “H unter” ) , head o f the CRT, spoke with Esco bedo’ s psyc hol ogi st but never i nvi ted hi m to the sc ene o r ask ed hi m to as si st. H unter re cal l s th at the psy chol og i st tol d him thathe di d not thi n k that Esco bedo had a hi sto ryo fusi ng weapons or att em pti ng sui ci de. Eb e t i no t e s t i fi e d tha t du r i ng the ne g o t i a t i o ns , Es c o b e do d i d n o t ma k e o r c o n s t i t u t e a th r e a t t o th e p o l i c e o r t o t he p u b lic, ex c ep t “ th e o n ly in d ica tio n . . . w as w h en h e s aid h e w an te d t o c o m e o u t o f h is a p ar tm en t w ith th e g u n .” This sta tem ent o ccurr ed at 8: 28 a.m ., w hi ch w as after supervi sor s decid ed , atabo ut 8 a. m . to fi re te arga s i nto Es c o b e d o ’ s a p a r t me n ta n d th e n ma k e e n t r y . A ts o me m o m en ts , Eb et i no b el i ev ed Esc o be do was b ar r i ca di ng hi s do o r a nd a to the r m om en t s i ts o un de d a s i fEs c o b e do was r emov i ngthe b ar r i ca de bythe do o r . A t 7: 27a . m . he tho ughttha tEs c o b e do wa s r e mov i ngthe b a r r i c a de fro m th e d oo r an d h e a ss u m ed (w ro n gfu lly) th at th is i nfo rm ati on was co m m unica ted to the com m anders. Dur i ngthe c o ur se o fne g otia ti o ns , Hunte r, Li eu te na nt K evi n Zel t ( “Zel t”) ( head of ER T), and Dep u ty Chie f6 N o. 08

- 2365 M ar ti n Bend er( “Bend er ”) ( com m ander o fthe scene) disc ussed usi ng te arga s a gai nst Esco bedo. Ben d er had ove ra l l autho ri ty ove r the i nci dent and s cene, but r el i ed on Zel t t o choos e the tacti cs agai nst E sco bedo a nd o n H unter for infor m ati on r ega rdi ng the nego ti ati ons. H unter had to re l y o n i nfo rm at i on fro m o therCRT m em ber s t o supp l y t o Bend er . A s m entio n ed previ ousl y, nor m al p ro c ed u re s c all for H u n te r to liste n to n e go tia tio n s v ia th e d i r e c t l i n k s y s t e m, b u t h e d i d n o t d o s o . Ats o me poi nt be tw een 6 : 45 an d 8 a. m . the i dea ofusi ng te arga s w as fi r s tb r o a c he d. Be nd e r l a t e r t e s t i fi e d tha tthe k ey f acto r i n hi s deci si on t o use t earga s on E sc ob edo was th atb y 8 a . m . , “ it w as o ur b el i eftha t th e ne g o ti at i o ns w er e n ot goin g a n yw h er e,” p ed es tr ian an d ve h icle tr affic w as inc re as i n g in th e a re a, an d H u n te r h ad to ld hi m t ha tEb e t i no h e a r d n o i s e s s ug g e s t i ngtha tEs c o b e do w as bar ri cadi ng hi s a partm ent. A l though Bend erwas not to l d tha t Esc o be do ha d e xpr es se d tha t he was no t g o i ng to hurt the pol i ce o r anyo ne el se, Bender b elieved that E scob ed o w as a th reat t o th e pu bli c bec au se of “the m ere f act tha t he was a r m ed wi tha wea po n a nd thr ea te ni ng to co m m it s u icid e.” Ze lt fi rs t s ugges ted usi ng te arga s a gai nst Esco bedo a s a “ sta nd ar d procedure” a n d “the next l ogi calst ep” wh en com m unica ti ons or nego ti ati ons w i th a perso n ar e no t su cc eeding and Esc o be do was b ar r i ca di nga nd f o r ti fy i ng hi s pos i ti on. A lthough Zel t s tat ed that he be l i eve d Escobedo had m ade thr ea ts o fso m e k i nd , the dist ri ct c o u rtfou n d th at it w as n otcle ar th at Z elt be liev ed th is at th e tim e of th e incide nt or form ed that opinion afterw ar ds. Rega rdl ess , Zelt coul d not i denti fy a ny st ate
-N o. 08

- 2365 7

m en t Esc o be do made th atZe l t kne w ofa t th e ti m e o fthe sta nd

- offthatco nsti tuted an e xpli ci t threa t t o the pol i ce orpubli c. Bende r also ac knowle dged that Escobedo had no t co m m i tt ed an y c r i m e bythe po i nti n ti m e th atthe tea r gas was deplo yed. Zel t s tat ed that the purpos e off or ci ng Escobed o fr om hi s a partm ent with tea r g a s wa s no t t o a r r e s t hi m b ut t o t a k e hi m i nto cus t o dy for a 24 -h ou r em er ge n c y m e n t a l he alt h d et en tio n . Ze lt i nd i cate d that the deci si on t o i ntro du ce tearga s was al so m oti vate d by hi s concer n that hi s o ffi cer s’ r eadi ness w as deter i or ati ng be c au se i t was hoto utsi de. H e cho se 8: 30 a . m . as the de adl i ne f o r ne g o ti at i o ns b ec au se he thought i t was i m port ant t o i ntro du ce the te arga s before the pea k d ow n t o w n hou r al th ou gh he w as aw are that m ostpeopl e work i ng dow ntown were al re ady at w or k b y 8 : 30 a. m . H unter concurr ed w i th Zel t’ s deci si on to us e te arg as , f o cus i ngon th e p o te nt i alda ng ert o the i nc r ea singnum be r ofper so ns who woul d b e i n the do wntow n ar ea a nd ne arthe ho spi ta l tha t was a cr o ss the str eetfro m Escobe do’s apar tm ent b uil ding. Deputy Chi efD ou gl as Luc k er( “Luc k er ”) was a l so o n the s ce ne at var i ous points a nd part i ci pated in d i scussi ons w i th Bend er, Zel t, and H unter on the use ofte arga s t o f or ce Esco bedo fro m hi s a partm ent. The dis trict co urt al so consi dered the te sti m ony of Larr y D anaher( “Danaher”) , the Estate ’ s e xpert i n pol i ce p r a c t i c e s . D a n a h e r s t a te d th a tb a s e d o n h i s c a s e r e v i e w, E sc ob ed o d id n ot p os e a th re at to offic e r s o r th e p u b lic th at r eq uir ed the use o ff or ce a nd thatthe use o ff or ce w as p r e matur e a nd b a s e d o n fl a we d p r i o r i t i e s . Da na her also said th at he i s fam il iar w ith en ou gh traffic in Fort8 N o. 08

- 2365 W ay n e t o kn ow it co u ld h a v e b ee n rer ou te d w ith m in im ali nconveni ence, and that tr affi c co ncer ns should not have pla yed a ro l e i n the deci si on t o use f or ce. A fterl ear ni ng tha t the pol i ce woul d dep l oy te ar ga s ag ainst Es co be do , Eb et i no c o nt i nue d t o ne g o ti at e. The po lice did noti nfo rm Escobe do ofthe pla n to deplo y g as ag ains t hi m . At 8 : 28 a . m . , Es co bedo tol d Ebe tino he was g o i ngt o c o m e o uto fthe a par tmentbu t w as g o i ng to br in g t h e g u n w ith h im . A t 8 :30 a.m ., E sc ob ed o a ga in c on ve ye d th a t h e w ou ld co m e o u t o f h is a p ar tm en t in thre e m i nut es . E betino co nveye d to f el l ow m em ber s o f the CRT that he wa n te d ano therthr ee m i nutes t o ne gotiate w ith E scob ed o. Eb etino d id n ot ask for m ore ti m e be yond thatthr ee m in u te r epri eve , and he di d not ask oth er m em bers of the CR T to inform th e com m an d ers that Escobedo w oul d s u rre n der i fEbeti no were gi ven mor e t i me t o n e g o t i a t e . A ft e r tho s e thr e e mi nu t e s e l a ps e d, Ebeti no be l i eve d that Esco bedo was notgo i ng to co m e o ut. As the pol i ce pre par ed t o f i r e t ea r g as g r en ade s i nt o the ap artm en t, E betin o w as told by one of the com m an d ers at the s c en e t o w i nd dow n the conve rs ati on with Esc o be do

. Hunte r t es ti fi ed th atEb et i no e nde d hi s pho ne ca l l wi thEs co be d o b efo r e th e g as was de pl o y ed an d that thi s was not i n acco rdance w i th nor m alpro cedures. A s the d ea dli ne approa ched, the ER T offi cer s put o n th eirga s m ask s. S er gea nt Ti m S el vi a ( “Se l vi a”) , wh o l ed the ERT entryte am , st ate d that wear i ng the ga s m ask m ake s i t di ffi cul t to com m unica te because i t m uffl es on e’ s voi ce. Danaher sta ted that gas m ask s dist or t officer s’ vo i ces and m ake co m m ands so und di sto rt ed and som eti m es i nd eci pherabl e.N o. 08

- 2365 9 Z elt ca lcu lat ed w h at h e th ou gh t w ou ld be an “in c ap ac it a t i ngc o nc e nt r a t i o n” o fc he mi c a l s f o r Es c o b e do ’ s a partm ent. H e cho se s i x . 37 m i l l i m ete r l i quid r ounds, si x . 37 m illim et er Sa ge p ow d er , an d fiv e o r t en .12 g au ge m u n iti o ns . At 8: 33 a. m . , Of fi ce r Br i an M ar tin ( “Martin”) a nd tw o othe r o ffi ce r s fi r ed th e te arg as r o unds i nt o the wi ndow s o fEscobe do’s apar tm ent. A fterthe fi rs t ro u nd o f tea r gas was fi re d, pol i ce wai ted abo ut te n m i nutes before Z el t o rder ed offi cer s t o fi re the seco nd r ound of ch emi ca l a g en ts i nt o Es co be do ’ s apa r tment. Acco r di ng to Ebeti no, afterthe fi rs t r ound ofte arga s had be en fi r ed, the fum es b ec ame t o o s tr o ngf o r him t o c o nt i nue ne g o ti at i ng w ith Esc o be do , f o r ci nghi m a nd o th erCRT m em b ers t o l eave the seve nth fl oo r ofEscobe do’s apar tmen tb ui l di ngwi tho utthe i r c o mm un i c a t i o n e qu i pm en t. T h is c u t o ff all co m m u n ica tio n w ith E sc ob ed o. Z elt st at ed th ati t i s no t st an dar d f o r a ne g o ti ator t o l ea ve the scene afterchem i calag ents orga s a re used a ga in st a subj ec t, but i t o ccurr ed her e be cause Ebeti no’ s poi nt o f nego ti ati on was unusuall y c l ose t o Escobedo’ s a partm ent, and Ebeti no did not have a gas m ask

. W hi l e the te ar gas r ounds w er e be i ng fi re d i nto E sco bedo’ s a partm ent, Esc o be d o t ried to c al l Offi ce r Ta y l o r ’ s ce l l pho ne , the p h o n e th a t wa s o r i g i n a l l y u s e d t o c o mmu n i c a t e w i th h i m. Escobedo att em pted to conta ct the pol i ce fi ve tim es: at 8 : 3 4 a . m. , 8 : 3 6 a . m. , 8: 3 9 a . m. , 8 : 4 3 a . m. , a n d 8 : 4 5 a . m. A fter al l of the ch em ical roun d s had been fired, there w as tw el ve ti m es the i ncapaci tat i ng concent ra ti on o f te ar g as i n Es co be do ’ s apa r tment
. Dana he r s ai d tha t amoun t “w as cle ar ly a n d ob vio u sly ex c es siv e.”10 N o. 08

- 2365 A fterthe seco nd r ound ofte arga s w as fi re d i nto Escobedo’ s apart m ent, pol i ce w ai ted anothe r ten m i nutes and then deci ded to bre ach the a partm ent doo r and dep l oy “c l ea r o ut ” ca ni st er s co nt aini ng mor e te arg as . The ERT e n t r y t e a m i n c l u d e d O ffi c e r s S e l v i a , Ma r t i n, J as o n B r o wn ( “Br o wn”) , a nd S co ttS tr au b ( “S tr au b” )

. Al l o fthe offi cer s, exce pt f orBro w n, were ar m ed w i th M P 5 s ubm ach i ne g uns , a Gl o ck ha ndg un, o r bo th

. Br o wn was c ar r y i ng a s ho ul de r - fi r e d we a po n tha ts ho o t s b e a nb a gr o un ds m eant to stun o r disabl e a per son. A fterusi ng a ra m to op e n the do o r, the o ffi c e r s thr e w a “ c l e a r o ut ” c a ni s t e r o f te a r g a s , wa i t e d a fe w mi n u t e s a n d th e n, a ft e r r e c e i v i ng no r esponse , thr ew a seco nd cani ste r of tear gas . A fter sti ll re c ei vi ng no re sponse, the ER T tea m pre pared to enterthe apart m ent. U pon enter i ng Escob edo’ s a partm ent the ERT team thr ew a fl ash ba ng g re nade. W hen the fl ash ba ng g re na d e explo des, i t y i el ds an i ntense l i g ht a nd e xt r emel y l o ud s o und. The e xpl o si o n fr o m the fl ash ba ng g re nade i gni ted the pro pel l ant ofa tea r gas ca ni st era nd s ta r te d a fi r e i n Es co be do ’ s apa r tment
. The ER T tea m e x ti ngui shed the fi re o nce i nsi de the apart
m ent. A fterr eal i zi ng tha t no o ne w as i n the m ai n ro om or t h e ki tchen, the ER T tea m deter m i ned Escobedo was i n the b edr o o m . The y y el l ed f o r hi m t o s ur r en derb ut r e c e i v e d n o r e s po ns e . Atthi s p o i nt, the o ffi c e r s to ok a r am an d b eg ant o f o r ce the be dr o o m do o ro pen . As the officers w orked to pu sh the d oor open , they heard E scobedo yel l seve ra l ti m es that he had a gun and th at it w as p ointed at h is ow n h ead

. On ce th e officers w ere ab l e to g etthe do o r s l i g ht l y o pen, the y thr ew a fl as h b an g gr enade i nto the bedro om . The ro om w as “pi tch b lack ”N o. 08

- 2365 11

w hen the fl ash ba ng was thr ow n i nto the r oo m . The fl ash ba ngg r en ad e e xp l o ded i n the fr o nto f, o r j us t i ns i de, the bedro om cl ose t where Escobed o w as l oca ted. The door e v e ntua l l y b r o k e , a nd a l l o fthe o ffi c e r s e nt e r e d the b e dr o o m. E s c o b e d o c o n t i n u e d t o y e l l th a t h e h a d a g un an d that i t w as p ointed at his ow n head

. Th e officers ev en tu al l y l o ca te d Es co be do , who w as si tt i ngo n the floo r of t h e c los et w ith a gu np oi n t e d u p sid e d ow n ath is o wn h e a d

. Ma r t i n o r d e r e d E s c o b e d o t o d r o p th e g un a nd w hen Escobedo bega n to l ower the gun, M ar tin fi re d b e c a u s e h e wa s i n f ea r ofhi s o wnl i f e . Wh e n B r o wn hear d M ar ti n or d er E sc obedo to dro p his gun, he t oo bega n to fi re hi s weapon at Escobed o i n an at tem pt to di sa r m hi m . Es co be d o was de cl ar ed dea d a t th e sc en e a sho rt tim e later. D an ah er, the E s tate’s ex p ert, state d that the O fficers disr ega rded the danger offl ash bang gr enades w hen they thre w o ne i nto the b edro om and i t e xplode d a few feet fro m Escobe do’s head, cer tai nl y r enderi ng hi m bo th bl i nd and deafatthe ti m e he w as shot

. On D ecem ber20 , 20 05, Raquel H ani c, as Per sonal Re pr es en ta ti ve o fthe Es ta te of R udy Es co be do ( “the Estate ”) fi l ed a co m pla i nt under 4 2 U.S

. C. § 1 983 al l egi ng, am ong other th ings, th a t D ep ut y C hief M artin B en d er, D ep ut y C h ie f D ou glas Lu cker, Sergeant K evin H un ter, Lie utenant Kevi n Zelt, O ffi cerBri an M ar ti n, Offi cer J aso n Brown, Offi c er S cot t S tr aub, S er gea nt Ti m S el vi a, Of fi ce r De r r i ckW es tfi el d, S er g ea ntS ha ne Le e an d Of fi ce r Be r na r d Ebe tino v i o l at ed Esc o be do ’ s co ns ti tu
ti onalr i ghts by usi ng exce ssi ve f or ce a gai nst hi m wh en12 N o. 08

- 2365 th eyde pl o y ed te arg as a nd fl as h b an gg r en ade s dur i ng the J uly 19, 2005 sta nd off

. On J anuary 22, 2007, Def endants Lee a nd W es tfi el d wer e di smissed fr o m the c as e. The re mainingDe f e nd a nt s mo v e d fo r s ummar y j ud g ment, ar g ui ng i n par t th at th ey wer e en ti tl ed to qua l i fi ed i m m unity. The district cou rt grante d i n p art an d de nied i n p art the Defendant Offi cer s’ m oti on f orsum m ar y j ud gm ent. S pec i fi ca l l y, the di st r i ctc o ur t di smi ss ed Defen dan t Ebe tino fr o m the c as e, a nd g r an te d s um m ar y j udg m en t for th e D efe n d an ts on th e E st at e’s ex c es siv e fo rc e c laim aga i nst M ar ti n and B ro w n f orthe f atalsho oting o f E scob ed o, t h e E state ’s f ail ure to trai n claim , the E state ’s war r an tl es s en tr y c l ai m , the Es ta te ’ s su bs ta nt i ve due p roces s cl ai m and the Estate ’ s s tat e l aw wrongful death c l a i m. T h e d i s t r i c tc o u r tde ni e d th e D e f e n d a n t s ’ s u mm ar y j ud gm ent with re spect to the E st at e’ s e xcessi ve f or c e c l a i m a g a i ns tMar t i n f o r fi r i ngt e a r g a s i nto Escobedo’ s a partm ent; the Estate ’ s s up er vi sory l i abi l i ty cl ai m a g ains t Ben der, Luc k er, Ze l t, a nd H un te r, f o r the tear gas fired into E scob ed o’s ap artm en t; th e E state ’s exce ssi ve f or ce c l ai m ag ai nst the ent ryte am

— Se l vi a, M ar tin, Br o wn, a nd S tr au b

— for t he rai d on E scob ed o’s apa r tmenta nd b edroom w i tht ea r g as a nd fl as h b an g gr enades; and the supe rv iso ryl i abi l i ty cl ai m ag ai nst B en d er , L u c ke r, Z elt, an d H u n te r, fo r th e e n tr y t ea m ’s ra id on Esco bedo’ s apartm ent. In denyi ng the sum m ar y j ud gm en t o n the se c l ai m s, the di st r i ctc o ur t f o und tha t th e D e f e n d a ntO ffi c e r s w e r e n o te n t i t l e d t o qu a l i fi e d i mm unity. The i nd i vi d u alo ffi cer s, Bender, Lucker, Zel t, H unter, M ar ti n, S el via , Bro w n and Str aub, now app eal the di str i ct c ourt ’ s deni alo fqual i fi ed i m m unity.N o. 08

- 2365 13

The Es t at e fi l ed a m ot i on f or i nt er l oc ut or y c er t i fi c at i on 2 p u rsu an t to 28 U .S. C

. § 12 92 (b) co n c e r n i n g issues d ecid ed in t he di s t ri c tc our t ’ s par t i al gr an t ofDefen dant s ’ M ot i on f or Sum m ary J ud gm en t w hich w as granted by the dist ri ctcourt on Septem ber 25, 2008. O n O ct ober 6, 2008, the Estat e peti ti oned th is C o u rt for an in te rl o cu to ry ap p ea l. SeeEst at e of Esco b edo v. B en d er, et a l. , A p p eal N o. 08-80 30
. O n O ctob er 2 3 , 2 0 0 8 , this C o u r td e n i e d t h e E s t a t e ’ s p e t i t i on f or i n t e r l o c u t o r y a p p e a l

. On Oct obe r 29 , 20 08 , the Es t at e fi l ed a M otion f or Rehe ar i ng a nd Rehe ar i ng En ba nc . O n N ovem ber 14, 2008, thi s Co urt i ss ued an or der i ns t ru c t i ng the Cl er k t o di s t ribut e t he pe t i t i on e n ba nc . On Apri l 21 , 2 00 9, th i s Cour tden i ed the Es t at e’ s Pe t i t i on f or Rehe ar i ng a nd i t s Pe t i t i on f or Rehe ar i ng En ba nc . I I . Discussi on A . Q u alif ied I m m u n ity T he on ly q u estion be fore us on th is app eal i s w he th er, ta k i ngthe f ac ts as t he di st r i ctc o ur t pr es en te d the m , the d istri ct cou rt erred in fi nd ing tha t t h e ind ivi d ua l officers w er e no t e nti tl ed to qual i fi ed i m m unity f ort h eirdeci si on to us e te argas t o e xt r i ca te Es co be do fr o m hi s apa r tment and the i r de ci si o n t o us e m o r e te arg as a nd fl as h b an g gr enades to enter hi s apart m ent. W e re vi ew the d istri ct 2 co ur t’ s den ial ofs um m ar y j udg m en t o n qua l i fi ed i m m uni ty gr ounds deno vo , as ki ng wh ethervi ew i ng the f acts i n the l i ght m ostf avo rabl e t o the pl ai n tiff, the defe nd ants w er e no ne th el ess enti tl ed to qual i fi ed i m m unity a s a m at te r of law

. Se e A n ders , 52 1 F

. 3d at 821 ( ci ti ng Sul l i van v. R a m irez , 36 0 F. 3d 692, 69 6 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04) )

. W hi l e a dist r i c t c o ur t ’ s de ni a l o f s ummar y o f j ud g men t i s not o r d i n a r i l y a p p e a l a b l e , w h e n a d i s t r i c tc o u r td e n i e s s u m-14 N o. 08

- 2365

m ar y j ud gm ent o n qual i fied i m m unity g ro und s, we have ju r i sd ict ion to co n sid er th is p u re ly leg al q u es tio n . See Leaf v. Shelnut t, 400 F.3d 107 0, 1078 ( 7th Cir. 2005). W e s tar t with the und er sta nd i ng that go ver nm ental acto rs per f or m i ng di scr eti onar y functi ons enj oy qual i fi ed i mmu n i t y a n d a r e “ s h i e l d e d fr o m l i a b i l i t y f o r c i v i l d a mag es ins ofa r as th eir co n d u c t d oe s n ot vio l at e c lea rly es tabl i sh ed st atut o r y o r c o ns ti tu ti o na l r i g ht s o fwhi cha re aso nabl e perso n w oul d have know n. ” Sa lleng er v. O a k es , 473 F. 3d 731, 73 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07) ( quoti ng H a rlo w v. Fitz gerald, 457 U .S. 80 0, 81 8 (1 98 2)). U p u n til th e d ay b e for e t h is c as e w a s arg u ed , Saucierv. Ka tz m ai ntai ned a se quenti al proce du re f orco nsi de ring w hetheran o ffi ceri s e nti tl ed to quali fi ed i m m unity. 53 3 U.S

. 19 4, 201 ( 2001 )

. U nd er Sa uc ier, w e w ere requ ired to fi rst d et erm ine w he th er, ta k i ngthe f ac ts i n the lightmos t f av o r ab l e to the pl ainti ff, the offi cer s’ co nd uct vi ol ate d a co nsti tu ti onalr i ght. Id

. Onlyi fthe pla i nti ffm et that b u rden would we then det er m i ne whethe r the pa r tic ul arc o ns ti tu ti o na l r i g ht w as “cl ear l y e stabl i shed” atthe ti m e o fthe alle ged vi ol atio n . Id

. The Suprem e Court re centl y rec onsider ed S a u ciera nd de c i de d “ tha twh i l e the s e qu e nc e s e tf or th [ i n Sa uc ier ] i s o ften a pp ro pri ate , i t s houl d n o l onge r be re gar ded as m andator y. ” Pears on v. Cal l ahan , ___ U
. S.
___, 12 9 S

. Ct. 8 08 ( 20 09 )

. Al th o ug h i t r ec o g ni ze d s i tu at i o ns i n w hi ch the Sa uc ierap p roach i s b e ne fi cial, the C ou rt co nc l ude d tha t th e j ud g es o fthe di st r i ctc o ur ts a nd th e c ou rt s o f ap p ea ls c ou ld ex er c ise th eir d isc re tio n in d ec id in g w h ich of th e t w o p ro n gs to ad d re ss first

. Id

. H er e, the Defe nd an ts lim i t thei r ar gum ent o n appeal to the seco nd pro ng o fthe Sa uc ierqua l i fi e d i mm unit yN o. 08

- 2365 15

Def en dant s do m ak e a pas s i ng r efer en c e i n the i r ope ni ng 3 b rief to the “ ob jectiv e rea so n ab lene ss st an d ard ,” w hile d isc us s i ng the i r dec i s i on t o e nt er Es c obe do’ s apa rt m en t w ith the u se o f tea r g a s a n d fla sh b a n g d ev ic es . S eeAp pell ants ’ Br. at 18 ( “The obje ct ive reas onab le ness st and ard does not require tha t officers u se altern ativ e less intru sive m e a n s t o a cco m p lish t he i r obj ec t i ves . ”)

. The obj ec t i ve re as ona bl en es s s t anda rd i s the co n sti tu tio n a l te st fo r u se o f for ce co n sid er a tio n s. SeeG ra ham v. (co n tin u ed ...) anal ysi s, thati s: wh etherthe l aw was cl ear l y e stablished as of J uly 19, 2005 , that the use of tea r gas an d fl ash bang devi ces in thes e uni que ci rcum sta nces vi ol ate s a n i ndi vi dual ’ s F o ur thAm en dm en t right t o b e f r ee fr o m the u s e o f ex c es siv e fo rc e. See A pp el l ants’ Br. at19 n. 3 ( “A lthough a pp el l ants re m ai n convi nced ofthe propri ety ofth eir acti ons, theyacknow l edge that the i ssue f or r ev i ew b y thi s Cou r t o n i nt er l o cut o r y appe ali s th e se co nd prong ofthe Sa uc ier te st, w h et h er t h e la w w as cle ar ly est abl i shed at the t i m e o fthe al l ege d constitu tio nal vi ol ati o n. ”)

. The y do no t co nt est the di st r i ctc o ur t’ s fi ndi ng th att ak i ngthe f ac ts i n the l i g htmos t f av o r ab l e to the Estate , a re aso nable j ury coul d find thatthei r deci si on to use t earga s a nd fl ash ba ng devi c es a gai nst Esco bedo, a s uic i dal, ar m ed, bar ri caded perso n, was an exce ssi ve u se of f or ce under the F ourth A m endm ent. A ccor dingl y, f o r pur po se o fthe pr es en t appeal , w e t ur n t o the s ec o nd prong ofthe Sa uc ierqua l i fi ed i m m uni ty anal y si s an d as su m e th ata r ea sonab l e j ur y c o ul d c o nc l ude tha t th e De f e nd a nt s ’ c o nd uc tv i o l a t e d E s c o b e do ’ s F ou r th Am e nd

m ent r i ghts. 316 N o. 08

- 2365

(

. . . c on t i nu e d) 3 Conn er, 49 0 U .S. 386 ( 19 89 ) (hold ing ob jectiv e rea son ab lene ss sta n d a rd ap p lic a b le to F o u rt h A m en d m en t u se o f fo rc e c la im s). T o th e exten t that D efend an ts’ lang u ag e attem p ts to ad d ress the fir stprong of the S au ci erqu alified im m u nity an aly sis, it i s i n c onfl i c t w i t h Defen dant s ’ di re c ts t at em en tthati ti s s ee ki ng rev ie w only as to the se cond p rong of the S au ci er tes t. Furtherm or e , i fi twa s De f e nd a nt s ’ i nt e nt i ont o m a ke a s ub s t a nt i ve argum ent w ith passi ng re fer ence to the objec ti ve reas onab le

ne s s s t a nd a r d, the a r gu m e nti s wa i ve d f orwa nto fde ve l op m en t. S ee Estat e of

M orel an d v. D i et er, 395 F. 3d 747, 759 ( 7th Cir

. 2 0 0 5 ) (“p er fu n ct o ry o r u n d ev el o p ed ar g u m en ts a re w a iv ed .”). i . Cl ear l y Est abli shed The Defe nd ants cl ai m that they ar e enti tl ed to qual i fi ed i m m unity b ecause the l aw was not cl ear l y e stabl i shed on J uly19 , 20 05, to pl ace them on n ot ice that the use o fte ar g a s a n d fl a s h b a n gd e v i c e s i n th e s e p a r t i c u l a r c i r c um sta nces w as unconsti tuti onal

. The Estat e has the burden ofes tab lish i ng tha t the co nsti tuti onalr i ght a t i ssue w as c lea rly es ta b lish ed

. See B o yd v. O w en , 4 81 F .3d 52 0, 52 6 (7t h C ir. 20 07 ); see also Kogerv. Bryan , 52 3 F
. 3d 789, 80 2 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) ( A pl ai nti ffse eki ng to d efeat an ass er ti on o fqua l i fi ed i m m uni tymuste st ab l i sh“ th atthe l aw c oncer ni ng the pl ai nti ff’ s a sse rt ed righ t was cl ear l y e stabl i shed at the t i m e the chal l enged co nd uct o ccurr ed. ”) ( i nt erna l quo ta ti o ns o m i tt ed)

. F o r a c o ns ti tu ti o na l r i g ht to be clearly establi sh ed , it s cont ou rs “m us t be su ffi ci en tl y cl ea r th at a r ea so nabl e o ffi ci al woul d unde r st an d th at w hat he i s doi ng vi ol ate s that r i ght”; however, an offici alact i on i s no t pr ote cted byqual i fi ed i m m unityN o. 08

- 2365 17

on ly w h en th e v er y a c ti o n i n qu es tio n h as p re vio u sly been hel d unlawful, r atherthe unlawful ness m ust be apparent “i n l i ght of the pre- exi sti ng law .” H o pe v . P elz er, 536 U

. S. 730, 739 (2002 ). T h e E st at e c an d em on st ra te th at th e rig h t w as cle ar ly est abl i shed by pres enti ng a cl ose l y a nal ogo us cas e that es tabl i sh es tha t th e D efenda nt s’ c o nduc t was unc o ns ti tu
tional or by p resen ting e vide nc e tha t the De fend an t’s conduct w as so patentl y v i ol ati ve ofthe const i tuti onal r i g httha tr e a s onab l e o ffi c i a l s wo ul d kno w wi tho utg ui dan c e fro m a c ou rt
. See H o pe, 536 U .S. at 7 39 -40 ; see also Si e b e r tv. Se ve r i no , 25 6 F

. 3d 648, 65 4- 55 ( 7th Ci r. 20 01) (id en tify in g t w o r o u t es for p ro vin g t h at a rig h t is cle ar ly est abl i shed: ( 1) the vi ol ati on is so o bvi ous that a r easo nabl e o ffi ce r woul d k no w tha t w ha t he i s do i ng vi ol ate s the C on st i tuti on; o r ( 2) a cl ose l y a nal ogo us cas e estab li sh es th at th e con d uc t is un con stitut ional).

a. Pat entl y Ob vi ous Consti t uti onal V i ol at i on W hen ass ess i ng wh ethera consti tuti onalvi ol ati on has occur re d , “ [ t] he Fo urth Am endm ent inquir y i s o ne o f

‘ obj ecti ve re aso nabl eness ’ under the ci rc u m sta nces. ” See Graham v. Conno r, 4 90 U. S

. 3 86 , 3 99 ( 19 89 )

. To de te r m i ne w he th er the force us e d t o effect a p articu lar seizure i s r ea so nabl e, we ba l an ce the na tu re a nd q ua l i tyo fthe intru sion o n th e ind ivi d ua l’ s ri gh ts agains t the “cou nt ervai l i ng g ove rnm entali nter est s a t s tak e. ” Seeid

. at39 5. Fact or s t o consi der i n m aki ng a deter m i nati on o fwh ether the a m ount o ff or ce use d to eff ectuat e a se i zure i s rea sonab l e i ncl ud e the se ver i ty ofthe cri m e at is sue, wh ether18 N o. 08

- 2365 the s uspect pos es an i m m ed iat e threa t t o the s afetyo f the o ffi cer s o r othe rs , and w hetherhe a cti vely is r esis tin g a rre st or a tt em p tin g t o e va d e a rre st by fligh t. See id

. at39 7. Otherf acto rs i ncl ud e w h ether the i nd i vi du al w as und erar re st orsuspect ed ofco m m i tti ng a cri m e, was arm ed, o r was i nt er f er i ngo r a tt empti ngt o i nt er fere w ith th e o ffice r’s ex ec u tio n of h is or h er d u tie s. Se eM cDonal d v

. Has ki ns , 9 66 F
. 2d 29 2, 2 92

- 93 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 2)

. I n the en d, the e xc es si ve f o r ce i nqui r y “ l o o k s t o whethe r the f or ce use d to se ize the suspect w as excess i ve i n re l ati on to the danger he pose d

— to th e co m m uni ty o r to th e arresting offi cers

— i fl eft unatt en ded

. ” Id . at 2 94 ; see also Est at e of St arks v. E ny a rt, 5 F. 3d 23 0, 23 4 ( 7th Ci r. 19 93) (f i n d i n g t h at th e a m ou n t o f forc e t h at is co n st itu tio n ally perm itt ed to exec ute a se i zure decr eas es w i th the thr eat of dan ger pos ed by the i nd ivi d ua l being seized ). A pp l yi ng the Grah am f acto rs , and draw i ng al l i nfe re nces in fav or of th e E st at e , t h e d ist ric t c ou rtco u ld rea so n ab ly questi on wh etherthe Defe nd ant Office rs had l egi ti m ate re aso ns to co ncl ud e that thei r u se o f te arga s a nd fl ash b a n gd e v i c e s i n th i s s i t u a t i o nw a s a c c e p t a b l e . A tth e t i me the o ffi cer s depl oye d the fi rs t r ound ofte ar ga s i nto E sc ob ed o’s ap a r t m en t a n d co n tin u in g on th ro u gh th eir deci si on t o deploya seco nd r oun d o f t ear g as and then to use m o r e t e a r g a s a nd fl a s h b a ngde v i c e s t o e nt e r to Escobedo’ s a partm ent, Escobe do w as not posi ng an i m m edi a t e thr e a tt o the o ffi c e r s o r t o the p ub l i c, t h e stan d offw as on ly th ree hou rs ol d , and the offi cers m ak i ngthe t ac ti ca l de ci si o ns di d no t ha ve al l o fthe re l evantand cr i ti cali nfo rm ati on r ega rdi ng the nego ti ati o ns . Es co be do was no t r es i st i nga r r es t, f leei ng fr o m theN o. 08

- 2365 19 pol i ce o r hol ding host ages. W hi l e Esco bedo m ay have po se d s o m e l ev elo fthe ato r po te nt i althr ea t t o the De f en dan t Of fi ce rs b ecause he was a r m ed an d unde r the i nfl uen c e o f d ru gs , tak in g t h e fa c ts in t h e l i g h t m os t fa vo ra b le to the Es ta te, h e d i d no t th r ea te n t o ha r m a ny o ne bu t him self. Es cobe d o h a d not com m itted a cri m e, th ere w e r e n o efforts to arrest him f or the com m issi on of a cr i m e, a nd the r e wer e no w ar r an ts f o r hi s ar r es t. The offi cer s’ o w n re as on f orthe deploy m ent o fthe f or ce us ed was t o s ei ze Escobedo f o r a t wenty - f o ur - ho ur m en ta l he alt h w at c h

. T h e u n re as on ab len es s o f th e d ec is i o n i s fu r th e r e x a c e rb a t e d b y th e b r e a k d o wni n c o mm uni ca ti o n i ni ti at ed byDe f en dan ts , the la cko fv i o l en t hi storyb y Es co be do ( co nfi r m ed byhi s co uns el o r ) , a nd th e la c k of a n y h os t a g e s o r th re at s t o t h e p u b lic. T h is scenar i o c ou p led w i th the am ount o fte arga s uti l i zed by the Defendants, twel ve ti m es the incapaci tat i ng l eve l o f te ar ga s ne c es sa ry , th e us e of flas h b an g d e v i c e s w ith in the t ear - gas - fi l l ed ro om , and the thro w i n g of the fl ash bang devi ce into a dar kened r oo m with n o knowledge of th e lo c a t i on of th e in d ivid u al in sid e t h at roo m co u ld po ss ibl y c r ea te a v i o l at i o n tha t i s so pa te nttha t no vi ol ato r has e ven at tem pted to obt ai n an appel l ate rul i ng o n i t. S ee A nd erson v . Ro m ero , 72 F. 3d 518, 52 6- 27 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 5) ( “A c o ns ti tu ti o na l v i o l at i o n tha t i s so pa te nt th at n o v io l a t o r h as ev en at te m p te d to ob ta in an ap p ell ate r uling o n i t ca n be re gar d ed as cl ear l y e stabl i shed even i n th e absen ce of prece d en t.”)

. T he cou rt need not ide nt ify this as su ch a case, how ever, b ecause o n J uly19 , 20 05, Def endants were proper l y o n n ot ice th at th e u se of te ar ga s a n d flas h ba n g d ev ice s in a cl ose l y a nal ogo us co ntext was deem ed unreas onabl e.20 N o. 08

- 2365 b. Cl osel y An al ogo us Case Law W he n l o o k i nga t cl o se l y a na l o g o us c as es t o de te r m i ne i fa ri ght was cl ear l y e stab lish ed at the t i m e o fthe vi ol ati o n, we l o o kfi r stt o cont r o l l i ngpr ec ede nto n the i ss ue fro m th e Su p r e m e C ou rtan d to p re c ed en t fro m th is Cir cui t. I n the abse nce o fco ntro l l i ng pre cedent, we m ust b ro ad en ou r su rv ey to inc lu d e a ll rele v a n t c as e la w in or der t o deter m i ne “whether there w as such a cl ear tr end i n the case l aw thatwe can sa y with fa i r ass urance th atthe re co g ni ti o n o fthe r i g htb y a c o nt r o l l i ngpr ec ede nt w as m erel y a questi on o fti m e. ” Jac ob s v. Ci ty of Chi cago , 215 F.3d 758, 766 (7th Cir. 2000). F i ndi ngtha t a r i g hti s cl ea r ly establ i sh ed unde r the secon d pron g of Sa uc ier ’ s q u alifie d im m u n ity an aly sis is n ot “p re d ica te d u p on th e e x ist en c e o f a p rior ca s e t h a t is dir ectl y o n poi nt. ” G reen v. B utler, 42 0 F
. 3d 689, 70 1 ( 7th Cir

. 20 05) ( i nter na l ci tat i ons om i tte d). “Altho ugh ear l i er c a s e s i nv o l v i ngfun da men t a l l y s i mi l a r f a c t s c a n pr o v i de especi al l y s tr ong supp or t f ora concl usi on that the l aw i s cl ea r l y e st abl ished, the y a r e no t ne ce ss ar y t o s ucha fin ding. ” H ope, 53 6 U. S

. at 74 1. Ra th er, ev en wher e th ere ar e notab l e f actual dist i ncti ons between th e precedents re lied on an d th e c as e b efo re th e C ou rt, i f th e p rior d ec isi ons gave r eas onabl e w ar n ing that the co nd uct at i ssue vi ol ate d consti tuti onalr i ghts they can dem onst rate c lea rly es ta b lish ed law

. S e eid

. Whi l e F o ur th Am e nd

m ent inquir i es ar e f act i ntensi ve, “offi ci al s ca n sti l l be on noti ce that thei r conduct vi ol ate s est abl i shed law ev en i n nove l f actualci rcum sta nces. ” Id

. A ccor di ng l y , the sal i ent quest i on here is not w hetherther e i s a pri orcas eN o. 08

- 2365 21 i den ti ca l t o the Es ta te ’ s cur rentc l ai m b utwhethe r the st at e of the l aw atthe re l evantti m e g ave the Defendants f ai r war ni ngth at th ei r t r ea tmento fEs co be do was unc o nst itu tio n al. G reen , 42 0 F
. 3d at 701.

1. TearG as T his C ircuit has p reviously an alyzed un d er w ha t circ u m st an c es t h e u se o f t ea r ga s an d o th er d isa b lin g c h em ic al a ge n ts w ou ld be c o n s t itu tio n ally im p er m iss ible . In S t r i n ge rv . Ro we, 6 16 F
. 2d 99 3 ( 7th C ir. 1 98 0) a nd Lo ckv. Je nki ns , 64 1 F
. 2d 48 8 ( 7th Ci r . 19 81 ) , we di scu ssed the const i tuti onall i m i ts for t h e use o fte arga s a nd m ace on pre-tr i aldetai nee in confi ned are as. W e dete rm i ned that th e u se oft ea r ga s a ga in st p er so n s c on fin ed in a j ail c ell w as appropri ate o nl y in ra re ci rcum sta nces a n d was not j usti fi ed w hen a pre- tr i aldeta inees did notco nsti tute an ac t ual t hre at
. S e e Lock, 64 1 F

. 2d at 496 ( al though a tr ay coul d be co nsi dered a potenti al w ea pon, i t was not enough t o j usti fy use o fte arga s; sho uti ng thr eat s t o guar ds w as not enough t o j usti fy th e use o fte arga s; en g ag i ngi n a r i o t afte r a tt em p tingt o e sc ape a nd t ak i ng the pr i s o n wa r de n a nd o the r s ho s t a g e wa s e no ug h to j usti fy use of te argas)

. In so hol ding, w e lo oke d to seve ra l othe r ci rcui ts that had previ ously rule d that “ the use o f such ag ents shoul d be s tr i ctl y l i m i ted to ci rcum sta nces pre se nt i ngthe ut m o stde g r ee o fda ng era nd l o ss o fc o ntr ol, ” a nd that the “use ofpote nti al l y dange ro us quanti ti es ofthe substa nce i s j usti fi ed onl y un d er n ar ro w l y defi ned ci rcum sta nces. ” Strin ger, 61 6 F

. 2d at 999 ( ci ti ng Spai n v . P roc un ier, 6 0 0 F
. 2 d 1 8 9 , 1 9 6 ( 9 th Ci r . 1 9 7 9 ) a nd M cCargo v .22 N o. 08

- 2365

D efend an ts arg u e tha t M ar as co w as decided i n N ovem ber 4 20 05 , whi c h i s after the dat e ofthe i nc i denti n thi s c as e and ther ef ore M ar as co c oul d notha ve pl ac ed th e Def en dant s on not i c e t ha t t he i r c on duc t was un l a wful ; ho we ve r , t he Third Ci rc ui tha s t wo opi ni ons c onc er ni ng M ar as co . C om p ar e E state of Sm i t h v. M ar as co , 31 8 F .3d 49 7(3d C ir . 20 0 3 ) (M ar as co I), w ith Est at e of Sm i t h v. M ar as co , 4 3 0 F .3d 1 4 0 (3d C ir . 20 0 5 ) (M ar as co II). M ar as co I is disc uss ed in this O p inion and w as decided prior t o J uly 2005. M ister, 46 2 F
. Supp. 813, 81 9 ( D. M d. 1978 ) )

. A dd i ti onally, we s pec i ficall y s ta te d tha t th e us e o ft ea r g as “ to s ubdu e ind ivi d ua l p rison ers, rath er than to qu elll arge d isturbances , sho uld be m or e r est ri cted. ” Id

. Other ci rcuit s hav e a l so add re sse d the co nsti tuti onal l i m i ts of u sin g t ea r ga s o n n on -p ris on er s. SeeJacobs , 21 5 F
. 3 d a t 7 6 6. I n E st ate of Sm it h v. M arasco , 31 8 F
. 3d 497 ( 3d Cir

. 20 03) , the pol i ce r ecei ved a c om pla i nt wh i ch cause d

4 th em to g o t o t h e Sm ith ’s h ou se . Id

. at50 2. S m i th was a f o r m erVi etna m v et er ana nd s uff er ed f r o m v ar i o us m entalheal th pro bl em s i n c lu ding Post

- Traum ati c S tr ess D iso rd er . Id

. at5 01

- 02
. Af te r a r r i vi nga t S m i th ’ s ho m e an d r ec ei vi ngno r es po ns e from kn o ck i ngo n the do o r, the officers saw a red li gh t an d believed th at it w as a la s e rsig h te d firea rm th at S m i th w as p oin tin g a t t h em . Id

. A fter attem p ting t o com m un icate w ith Sm ith, th e officers c alle d for a n E R T te am . Id

. The E R T te am ar ri ved w i th t h i rt y off ice rs an d n u m er ou s w ea p on s. Id

. a t 50 3. Dur i ng the c ours e o fnegotiati ons w i th S m i th, the ER T tea m re fused to l et f rien d s o r f am i l y c om m unica te w i th S m i th a n d rejec te d th e u se of a p sy c h olo gis t. Id

. T he ER T tea mN o. 08

- 2365 23 then deci ded to cl ear Sm i th out of hi s house, and t o en ter hi s house them sel ves w i th the use of tea r gas an d flas h b an g g re n ad es . Id

. The M ar as co cour t hel d that S m i th had proff er ed suffi ci ent f acts to m ake the questi on o f w hetherthe defe nd ant o ffi cer s use d e xcessi ve f or ce i n deploy i ng tea r gas and fl ash bang gr enades app ro p ria te for re so lu t ion by a j u ry . Id . at 5 16 . In m ak in g t h is de t e r mi na t i o n, the c o ur ts t a ted thatthe ER T we r e a pp roach ing only one m an, not a large group a nd there w er e n o h os ta ge s in sid e t h e h ou se . Id

. A lthou gh officers we r e a wa r e tha t S mi th wa s men t a l l y un s t a b l e a nd was possibl y pos ses si ng a fi re ar m , ther e was no i n d icati on that Sm i th had b ee n usi ng a gun re centl y o r that Sm i th had everused a gun i n a v i ol ent m anner. Id

. a t 5 17

. The o ffi ce r s wer e no t at te m ptingt o make ana r r es t atthe ti m e th ey dec i ded to us e th e te ar g as an d fl ash bang gren ad e s , and there w as no i nd ication in the reco rd th atS m i thha d a ny hi st o r y o fv i o l ence w hich th e offic er s w ou ld h a v e b e en aw ar e o f. Id

. La stly, the cou rt he l d tha t a j ur y s ho ul d b e al l o w ed to h earthe t es ti m o ny ofS m i th’ s poli ce e xpert w ho was ofthe opi ni on that th e o ffice rs be h av ior w as u n re as on ab le a n d u n law fu l. Id

. I n the abs en ce of con tr o l l i ngpr ec ede ntfr o m o ur ci rcui t, co urts l oo k t o other ci rcui ts to asce rt ai n w hether th ere was s ucha c l ea r t r en d i n the c as e l aw tha t th e re cogni ti on o fth e rig ht bya contr ol l i ng pre cedent was m er ely a m at te r of t im e. Se e Cle ve l and- Per due v. B rutsche, 88 1 F
. 2d 42 7, 4 31 ( 7th Ci r . 19 89 )

. The r e ar e o th erde ci si o ns f ro m o ur s i ste r c ircuit s that a re “cl ose l y a nal ogo us” t o th e situation before us so as to p ut the D efend an t O fficers on not i ce that thei r deci si on t o us e tea r gas ag ai nst24 N o. 08

- 2365 Escobedo w as an unreas onabl e use o ff or ce See, e.g ., Viny a rd v. Wil s on , 31 1 F

. 3d 1340 , 13 49 ( 11th Cir

. 20 02) ( offi cer us ed ex cess ive f orce u nd er Grah am wh er e he pepp er sp ra ye d a h an d c u ffed an d co n fin ed d et ain ee ); Green v. B a rber, 31 0 F
. 3d 889, 89 8 ( 6th Ci r. 20 02) ( offi cer s co nd uct m i ght b e f ound to b e e xc es sive f or ce where offi cerused peppe r s pr ayo n i ndi vi dualw ho was a r r es te d f o r no nseve re crim e and w ho w as no t threa ten ing an yon e’s safetyor atte m pti ng to evade ar re st by fl i ght e ven though i ndi vi du al may ha ve b ee n a ct i ve l y r es i st i nga r r es t an d re fu se d to be h an d c u ffed ); Sl akan v. P o rter, 737 F. 2d 368, 37 2 ( 4th Ci r . 1 98 4) ( pr i so n g ua r d’ s us e o f te arg as “ unqu es ti o nabl y c ro sse d the l i ne se parat i ng nece ssa ryf or ce fro m bruta l i ty” w here p ri sone r w as l ock ed i n hi s ce l l and posed no di r ec t phy si ca l thr ea t to o th eri nm at es o r a ny o fthe gu ar d s); Adam s v. M e t i va , 3 1 F.3d 375, 38 7 (6th C ir. 1994) (a re aso nabl e officer would know thatspra yi ng m ace on a p o t e n tia lly b lin d ed , in c ap ac ita te d ind ivid u al w ou ld viol ate th e ri gh t to be free from exc essive force). Bas ed o n co nt r o l l i ngpre ce den t fr o m thi s Ci r cui t an d the cl ea r t r en d i n the l aw fr o m o ur s i st erc i r cui ts , the cl ear l y e stabl i shed l aw as o fJ uly19, 2005, es tabl i shed that th e us e o ft ea r g as i s unr ea so nabl e when: ( 1) a tt empti ng to subdu e i nd i vi du al s a s o pp ose d to m ass cr owd s; ( 2) w he n the i nd i v i du a l do e s n o tp o s e a n a c t ua l thr e a t; ( 3) wh en the i nd i vi du ali s no t ho l ding host age s; ( 4) wh en th e ind ivi d ua l ha s not com m itted a cri m e and the offi cers are noti n the proce ss ofat tem pti ng to m ake an a rr est; ( 5) wh en the i nd i vi d u al is ar m ed but m er el y s uic i dal as opposed to hom i ci dal; ( 6) wh en th e i nd i vi du ali s no t at tem p tingt o e va de ar r es t o r fl ee fr o m the po l i ce ; a ndN o. 08

- 2365 25 ( 7 ) w h e n th e i n d i v i d u a l i s i nc a p a c i t a t e d i n s o me f o r m. H er e, l i k e S m i thi n M arasco , Escobedo w as al one in h is apart m ent, he w as n ot inci ti ng a ri ot, m aki ng a “l ar ge d ist u rb an c e,” h old in g h os ta ge s or m ak in g an y t h re at s. See Lock, 64 1 F.2 d at 4 96. Li ke Sm i th, Escobedo had m ental h ea lth i ssues and a gun, but the re was no i nd i cati on that Esco bedo had be en using a gun re centl y o r that Escobedo had everused a gun in a vi ol ent m anner. U nl i ke S m i th, ho wev er, who all eged l y po i nt ed hi s g un a t th e pol i ce b ut wh er e the co urt sti l l f ound that the o ffi cer s’ conduct i n deplo yi n g te ar ga s a nd fl ash ba ng devi ces coul d be f ound to b e un re asonabl e, Escobe do did not p oint his gu n a t a n y one bu t him self. W he n th e officers m ade thei r deci si on t o enterthe apart m ent, ther e was no o ne e l se a t r i ski n the a par tmenta nd the r ea so ns gi ven bythe office rs forente ri ng the apar tm ent a t that ti m e w er e sol el y t ra ffi c co ncer ns and the deplet ed ener gy ofthe offi cer s o n the scene; theywer e n ot base d on any c onc er n that Escobedo w as an i m m i nent threa t t o oth ers. B y th e tim e th e D efend an ts en tered E scob ed o’s apart m ent they ha d al re ady fi re d tw el ve ti m es the incapac i ta ting amoun t o f te ar g as i nt o hi s ho m e. The am o unt ofga s e m anati ng fro m Escobe do’s apartm en t w as so str o ng tha t Offi c e r Eb e t i no ha d t o l e a v e hi s s t a t i o n outsi de Escobedo’ s a p artm ent b ecause he di d not hav e a gas m ask

. Therefor e, taki ng the f acts i n the l i ght m ost f avo rabl e t o the Esta te, Def endant Offic ers would have kn o wn tha tEs c o b e do wa s inc a pa c i t a t e d ins i de the a pa rt
m en t a nd de ci ded to us e m o r e te arg as a nd fl as h b an g gr enades s ubsequent t o the i ni ti alga s. The si m i l ar i ty of the f acts o n the M arasco cas e a nd o fEscobe do’s si tuati on26 N o. 08

- 2365 p lac ed th e O ffice rs on n ot ice th at th eir en tr y w as p os sib ly u n c on st itu tio n al. Se eHope, 53 6 U.S

. at73 9. The De f end an ts a ss er t th atthe se c as es a r e i ns uffi ci en t to p u t t h em on n ot ice be c au se th e y d o n ot sp ec ifica lly add r e s s the u s e o ft e a r g a s wh e r e the o b j e c t i v e wa s to f o r ce a n a rm ed an d s ui ci dalpe r so n fr o m a dwel l i ng . The M arasco cas e, however, i s s tr i ki ngl y s i m i l ar a nd exact sim ilar ity is n ot req u ire d

. See H o pe, 5 3 6 U. S

. a t7 3 9 ( An offi ci alact i on i s no t pr ote cted by qual i fi ed i m m unity on ly w h en th e v er y a c tio n in q u es tio n h as p r e v i o u sly been hel d unlawful, r atherthe unlawful ness m ust be ap p aren t “in li gh t of th e p re-existing law

. ”); Chakl os v. St e ve ns , 5 6 0 F .3d 70 5, 71 6 (7 th C ir. 20 09 ) (“T h e q u es tio n is no t whethe r there i s a pr i o r c as e ‘ o n a l l f o ur s’ wi ththe cu rrent claim

. ”); M iller v. Jo n es , 44 4 F
. 3d 929, 93 4 ( 7th C ir. 2006) (f or a ri gh t to be clearly estab li s he d there does not have to be a pri orcas e w ith m at er i al l y s i m i l ar f acts ; o ffi ci al s m ay sti l l be on not i ce in “nove l f actual ci r cumst an ce s. ”)

. Bas ed o n th e f ac ts as pr es en ted to us i n the re cor d a nd tak i ng them i n the l i ght m ostfav or ab le to th e E st at e, w e fin d th at D efe n d an ts ’ ac tio n s in deploy i ng an excess am ount of tea r gas to extr i cate Esc o be do , a non- th r ea te ni ng, no n- vi o l en t, no n- r es i st i ng i nd i vi du al, fro m hi s a partm ent v i ol ate d a c lear l y e stabl i shed ri ght a nd ther ef or e the Defendants ar e no t pr otect ed by quali fi ed i m m unity.

2. Fl ash Bang Grenades The Defe nd ant O ffi cer s co ntend that they ar e e nti tl ed to qua l i fi ed i m m uni tyf o r th ei r de ci si o n t o us e fl as h b an gN o. 08

- 2365 27 d ev ice s t o e n te r E sc ob ed o ’ s a rp ar tm en t. W e h av e p re vio u s l y i n d ica te d th at th e u se of flas h ba n g d ev ice s s h ou ld be l i m i te d a nd i s no t ap p rop ria te i n mos t ca se s. I n M ol i na v. C o o per, 3 25 F
. 3d 96 3 ( 7th Ci r . 2003), whi l e we f o und th atthe o ffi c e r s ’ u s e o ffl a s h b a n gd e v i c e s d u r i n gthe ex ec ut i o n ofa “hi g h r i sk ” se ar chwar r an t

— w hi ch w as obt ai ned f orM ol i na’ s hom e on suspi ci on o fdrug acti vi ty

— w as reason able beca us e M oli na had a cri m inal h istory th ati nc l ude d a g g r avated a ss au l t, was a l l eg ed to b e th e head ofa drug di str ibut ion o rg ani zati on, was ass oci ate d wi thg a ng s , wa s h o me a nd h a d a c c e s s t o a s t a s h o fwe a pons , w e e xpressl y s tat ed that “w e i n no way sug ges t that the use o ffl ash ba ng devi ces i s a pp ro p ri ate i n eve rycas e ( o r e v e n mos tc a s e s )

. ” Id

. at96 6 n. 1, 97 3. I n fi nd i ng tha t the o ffi cer s’ deplo ym ent o ffl ash ba ng devi ces w as re aso nabl e, we emphas i ze d tha t th e o ffi ce r s ha d a s i g ni fi ca nt r ea so n t o b e co nc erne d abo utthe i r pe r so na l sa f ety a nd w e e xpressl y l i m i ted o ur ho l ding to the c i rcum stan ces p re se n te d in t h at ca se . Seeid

. a t 973. I n U ni t e d S t at e s v. Fol ks , 23 6 F

. 3d 384 (7t h C ir. 20 01) , we disc ussed, i n dict a, the pot enti al l y s er i ous inj uri es that m ay ar i se f ro m the use ofa fl ash ba ng devi ce duri ng a sea rch. W e s ugges ted th at a suffi ci entl y c ar eful ( orper haps re aso nabl e) use of a fl as h b an gde vi ce o cc ur s when off icer s ta k e a m o m en t to l o o ki n s i d e a r e s i d e n c e o r a r o o m t o e n s u r e th a tno on e w ou ld be inju re d by th e d ev ice b efo re to ss in g it an d w h er e o ffice rs ca rry a fire ex tin g u i sh er to qu ick ly ex ti ngui sh any fi re s r esul ti ng fro m deplo ym ent o f the devic e. Id . at 3 88 n .2. W e a lso , in n o u n c er ta in te r ms, p o i nt e d o uttha tthe u s e o fa fl a s h b a ngde v i ce i s j usti fi ed w hen “pot enti al l y vi ol e ntpeopl e [ can] be28 N o. 08

- 2365 f o und i n [ a] ho us e, ” as o ppo sed to i ndi vi dual s who pose no thre at to the pol i ce or ot h er s. Id

. a t3 8 8 n . 2 ( e mphasi s a dd ed). W e no ted thati fthe gov er nm ent doe s no t us e di sc r et i o n i n w he n an d ho w the y us e fl as h b an g d e v i c e s , th e y “ ma y [ ] r i s ks i g n i fi c a n td a ma g e c l a i ms f ro m the carele ss deploy m ent o ffl ash-bang devi ces. ” Id

. I n U nite d State s v. M o rr is , 349 F.3d 100 9 (7th C ir. 2003), w e e xpli ci tl y s ta ted thatthi s Courthas “often e m phasi zed the d an ge ro us natur e o ffl ash-bang devi ces and has cauti oned thatt h e u se o fsuch devi ces in c loseproxim ity to sus pects m ay not be reasonable

. ” Id . at 1 01 2. (E m p h as is adde d)

. W e su g g es te d, al so i n di ct a, th at th e us e of a fl a s h b a ngg r e na de i s r e a s o nab l e o nl y wh e n ther e is a dan g er o us s us pec t an d a da ng er o us e nt r y po i ntf o r the po l i ce , whenthe po l i ce ha ve che cked to s ee i fi nno ce nt i nd i vi du al s are around bef or e d epl oying the devi ce, wh en th e po l i ce ha ve v i su al l y i ns pecte d the a r ea wher e th e d evice w il l be used an d w he n the p oli ce car r y a fire ex tin gu ish er . Seeid

. at10 12 n. 1. W e a l so disc ussed the appropri ate ness of u sin g fl ash ba ngde vi ce s i n U nited S t a tes v. Jon es , 21 4 F
. 3d 836, 83 7- 38 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 0)

. I n Jo nes , we wer e di sturbe d b y the offic er s u se of flas h ba n g d e v i c e s a n d st at ed th at w h ile the dist ri ct cour t f ound thei r conduct to be re as onable , w e w er e l e s s ce rt ain
. Id. Sp ec ifica lly, w e u n am b igu ou sly sta ted that“pol i ce c annot autom ati cal l y th ro w bo m bs i nto drug deal er s’ house s, ev en if the b om b g oes by th e eup he m ism ‘flash-ban g d evice’, ” p articu larl y w he re th ey d o n ot believe th e d rug d ealer is a n u nu su all y d an gerou s in d ivid u al. Id. W e fou n d thi s t o be t rue eve n though guns ar e norm al l y used i n the drug trade a nd ev enN o. 08

- 2365 29

w h er e a d ru g d ea ler h as a p r ior w ea p on s o ffen se . Id. Lastl y, wh i l e Jo nes was a c ri m i nal cas e that di scusse d th e u se of flas h ba n g s i n t h e c on te x t o f su p p re ss in g e viden c e , we s pe c i fi c a l l y s t a t e d tha t “ [ i ] f thi s we r e a damag es a ct i on se ek i ngc o m pen sa ti o n f o r i nj ur y t o the o cc upa nt s o r t o the do o r, th e cl ai m woul d b e a se r i o us one. ” Id. Oth erc i r cui ts ha ve s i m i l ar l y c o ns i der ed th e co ns ti tu
tio n al lim its of u sin g a fla sh ba n g d ev ice
. Se e, e . g. , Boyd v

. B ent on C ounty, 374 F
. 3d 773, 77 7- 79 ( 9th Ci r. 20 04 ) ( use o f f l a s h b a ngde v i c e u nc o ns t i t ut i o na l u s e o fe xc e s s i ve f or c e where pol i ce depl oy ed i t without e i therl oo ki ng o r sou nd ing a w arn ing w he n th ere w ere innoc en t ind ivi d ua ls in a room as w ellas sus p ecte d ro b b e rs). Ad di ti ona l l y, the c o ur t i n E st ate of Sm it h v. M arasco , 31 8 F. 3d 497, 51 5- 18 ( 3d Cir

. 20 03) , pre vi ousl y m enti oned abov e, di scusse d the use o ffl ash bang g re nades to ente r an i nd i vi du al ’ s ho m e where the purpos e w as not to ar re st hi m and w here the ind i vi du alwas non- thre ate ni ng, m ental l y unstabl e a nd sui ci dal. The M arasco cou rt de term i ne d th a ta r e a s o n a b l e j u r y c o u l d fi n d th a tthe de f e nd a nto ffi c e r s ’ c o nd uc twa s u nr e a s o nab l e a nd e xc essiv e u n d er th e F ou rt h A m en d m en t. Id. H er e, the De f en dan ts fi r stde pl o y ed a fl as h b an g gre na de as the ERT te am m ade i ts e nt r y i nt o Es co be d o’s apa r tment
. The r ec o r d r efl ec ts tha t th e Defen dan t Offi cer s h ad n o i dea wh er e Esco bedo was l oca ted wh en they thre w the fi rs t fl ash bang i nto hi s apart m ent. A d d itio n ally , t h e re is n o e vid en c e t h at th e o ffice rs vis u ally i nspected the ar ea bef or e th ro w in g the fl ash ba ng devi ce30 N o. 08

- 2365

or th at th ey look ed ins id e, ev en ev er so sligh tly , to se e if an y o ne els e was pr es en t th atmay be i nj ur ed bythe fl ash ba ng. The s ec ond fl ash ba ng devi ce was depl oye d when the De f en dan ts e nt er ed Esc o be do ’ s be dr o o m . The Defe nd ants w er e o nl y abl e t o f or c e th e doo r open sl i ghtl y a nd the ro om was “pi tch bl ack” wh en the y thre w the fl ash ba ng g re nade. The fla sh bangdevi ce l an ded ne xtt o Es co be do ’ s he ad when i t ex p loded. The r e c o r d r e fl e c t s tha t Es c o b e do wa s b l i nd a nd de a fwh en the o ffice rs e n ter ed hi s be droo m as a re sul t o fthe l oca ti o n o fthe e xpl o si o n i n pr o xi m i tyt o hi s he ad. Addi ti o nal l y , th e E s t a t e ’ s p o l i c e e x p e r tt e s t i fi e d th a ta fl a s h b an g gr enade sho uld b e pla ced i n a r oo m , notthr own o r tos sed, so a s to p re vent i t fro m l anding i n an uni ntended l o ca ti o n. T he r e i s no ev i den ce th at th e Defen dan t Of fi ce rs w ere c ar ry in g a fire e x tin g u i sh er ev en th ou gh th ey h ad p re viou sly dep loyed tea r gas acce lerants into E scob ed o’s apart m ent a nd , i n fac t, the i ni ti alfl ash ba ng devi ce s et a fi re i n Escobe do’s apar tm ent b ecause i t hita tea r gas c an ist er . Fu rt h er m or e, as st at ed p r ev iou sly , d ra w in g a ll i n f e r e n c e s i n f a v o r o f th e E s t a t e , E s c o b e d o wa s n o t co nsi dered to be a vi ol ent, d an ger ous ind i vi du al, he was not the s ubj ect ofan a rr estand he di d not p os e an i m m edi ate thre at to th e pol i ce o r othe rs . The f act that Escobedo w as i n posse ssi on o fa gun does not provid e su pp or t f or the Defendants thattheir use o ffl ash ba ng devi ces w as re as on ab le. See Jo nes , 21 4 F
. 3d at 837- 38. On the se f ac ts , vi ewe d i n the l i g htmos t f av o r ab l e to the Est at e, the l aw po i nt s o nl y i n o ne di r ec ti o n: the us e o ftheN o. 08

- 2365 31 fl ash ba ng devi ces i n thi s case w as an unrea sonab l e use o ff o r c e t o wh i c h qu a l i fi e d i mmun i t y d o e s n o ta p p l y . As di sc us se d abo ve , thr o ug h the us e o f “l uci d an d una m bi g uou s” d ict a, se e H anes v. Z uri ck, 578 F.3d 491 , 4 9 6 ( 7th Cir. 2009 ) , we have r epeatedlyexpre sse d our concern w i th th e o ve r us e o ff l as h b an gde vi ce s, e spe ci al l y wher e th e ci rcum sta nces do not w ar ra nt such e x trem e m eas ures . T h is is b ec au se flas h ba n g d ev ice s are es se n tia lly gr enades a nd can be v er y dange ro us and destr ucti ve. D es p ite th e a b se n c e o fa g r e a t d ea l of p re c ed en t in th is ar ea, the pertinent ho ld in gs and dicta do s how a cl ear t r e n d i n th e l a w th a ta d d r e s s e s th e e g r e g i o u s c i r c u mst an ce s o fthi s ca se ; ev en ifthe c o nt o ur s o fthe c o ns ti tu
tio n al im p lic a tio n s o f th e u se of “fla sh ba n g” d ev ice s in gener ali s no t cl ear, i t i s abund antl y c l earthatthi s ca se ar i se s i n pr ec i se l y the c i r cumst an ce s th at th i s Cou r t an d o th erc i r cui ts ha ve s o ug htt o a vo i d b y pr o vi di ng detai l ed gui dance on whe n the use o ffl ash ba ng devi ces is (a n d is n ot ) ap p ro p ria te u n d er th e C on st it u t ion
. See Ande rs on v. Cr e ight on , 48 3 U.S

. 63 5, 64 0 ( 198 7) ( eve n dict a m a y cle ar ly es ta b lish a rig h t); see also Ha nes , 5 7 8 F
. 3 d a t 496. I fthi s were a bo rd er line c ase , per haps the re l ati ve paucity o fj ud i ci alhol din gs f orbi dd i ng the use offl ash bang devi ces as com pared to o th er m or e full y deve l oped ar eas o fFo urth A m endm ent j uri sprudence w oul d counsel i n f avo r ofa gener ous a pp l i cati on o fqual i fi ed i m m unity. H owever, o n the f acts o fthi s ca se, the office rs ’ co nd uct i n the u s e o fthe fl a s h b a ngde v i c e s s o c l e a r l y e xc e e ded the b ounds ofr eas onabl eness in the ci rcum sta nces that i t ca nnot be sa i d to l i e nea r the “ hazy bor der bet w een excess i ve and acceptabl e f or ce” al ong w hi ch qual i fi ed32 N o. 08

- 2365 i m m unity s hi el ds offi cer s from liabi l i ty f orthei r snap j ud g men t s , i f tho s e j ud g men t s pr o v e t o b e wr o ngupon fur th err efl ec ti o n. Based on the pre

- exi sti n g c ase l aw , i t was cl ear l y e stabl i shed as of J uly19 , 20 05, thatthr owing a fl ash ba ng devi ce bl i nd l y into an ap ar tm ent where ther e a re acc el er ants, w i tho uta fi r e e xt i ngui s he r, a nd wh e r e the i nd i v i du al at te m ptingt o b e se i zed i s no t anunu su al l y da ng er o us i nd i vi du a l, i s no t the s ubj e c t o f a n a r r e s t, a nd ha s not thre ate ned to h ar m anyo ne but hi m sel f, i s a n unreasonab l e use o ff or ce. There f or e, ta ki ng the f acts as pre sente d to us fro m the dist ri ct c ourt, th e Defendants ar e no t e nti tl ed to qual i fi ed i m m u n ity and the i ssue of the o ffi cer s’ deci si ons m ust be pre sente d to a j ury.

I I I . Concl usio n The dis tr i ct c ourtdi d not e rri n denyi ng Defendants’ M o ti o n f o r S um m ar y J udg m en t ba se d on qua l i fi ed i m m un ity. A ccor dingl y, we A FFIRM the deci si on o fthe dist ri ct cour t.N o. 08

- 2365 33

Co m m only used by law enf orcem ent, flas h- bang dev ic es are 1 non - l ethal di s t ra c t i on t ool s tha t“gen er at e a l oud e xpl os i on and a br il li ant flas h thatdisor ie nt s uspects
. ” S ee“ p o l i c e :: e x p l o s i v es ,” ht t p: //ww w. s ea rc h. eb. c om / eb/ ar t i c l e- 26 09 42 (l as tvi s i t ed J anu a ry 29 , 20 1 0 ). M A NI ON, Cir cu i tJudg e, c o nc ur r i ngi n th e j udg m en t i n part a nd di s s e nt i ng i n pa r t
. W ha t s t a r t e d o utas a seem ingly routine resp ons e to Ru d y E scob ed o’s 911 cal l thr eat eni ng hi s o w n sui ci de d es cended i nto an unfo rtunate a nd cer tai nl y di sturbi ng r esul t. I n h in d sight, at l eas t, the re sponse to h is threa t l i kel y s houl d not ha ve go ne much b ey o nd the t el eph o ne ne g o ti at i o ns i ni ti ate d by S er gea nt Tayl or a nd co nti nued by Offi cer Ebeti no. H owever, co m m unica ti ons eve ntua lly bro ke d ow n an d w ha t ap p ears t o h ave be en an u nn eces sary a s s a ul twi th the t e a r g a s a nd fl a s h-b a ngde v i c e s e ns ue d. 1 A lthoughIque st i o n whe th erthe c as es c i te d b y the cour tc l e a r l y e s t a b l i s he d tha tthe o ffi c e r s ’ u s e o ft e a r g as vi ola te d the F ourth A m endm ent, Ido be l i eve thatr easonab l e official s would have kno w n that usi ng twel ve ti m es the i ncapaci tat i ng quanti ty ofte arga s t o extr i cate a pe r s o n a t ho me a l o ne who ha d o nl y thr e a t e ned to ha r m hi m se l fa nd was no t su spe cted o fc o m m i tt i ng a c rim e “ w as unconsti tuti onalwitho ut gui dance fro m cour ts. ” G ossm eye r v. M cD ona ld, 128 F. 3d 481, 496 (7th Cir. 19 97 )

. F o r th a tr e a s o n, Ic o n c u r wi th th e c o u r t ’ s c o n c l usi on that the defendants’ use ofte ar g as w as not protect ed by quali fi ed i m m unity. Idi sa g r ee , ho wev er, wi th th e co ur t’ s co nc l us i o n tha t th e defe nd ants ar e no t e nti tl ed to qual i fi ed i m m unity f or34 N o. 08

- 2365 thei r use o fthe fl ash-bang devi ces. The m ajorit y opini on hol ds that on the date ofthe in c id en t i t was cl ear l y e stabl i sh ed th atthe defen dan ts ’ e m pl o y m en t o fthe fl as h-ba ng devi ces w as an exce ssi ve use o ff or c e. I n re achi ng i ts concl usi on, the cour t r el i es up on s i x case s th at i nvol ved th e us e o fs uchde vi ce s byl aw e nf o r ce m en t. Buta s ex pla i ned bel ow, those c ases nei therse parat el y no r col l ect i v e l y c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s he d tha tthe de f e nd a nt s ’ c o nduct w as unconsti tuti onal

. A nd because the defe nd ants’ use o f the fl ash-bang devi ces

— unli ke thei r use o fthe tea r gas

— w as no t obvious ly in viol ation of the d eced en t’s co ns ti tu tional r i g ht s, the y a r e en ti tl ed to qua l i fi ed i m m uni ty on thi s i ssue. The fi r sto fthe f o ur c as es fr o m thi s ci rcu i t ci te d i n the m aj or i ty opi ni on i s M o lina v. C o o per, 325 F.3d 963 ( 7th Cir. 2003 )

— a n e x c e s s i v e f o r c e c a s e . T h e r e , wh i l e e x e c ut i ng a sea r chwar r an t, po l i ce us ed fl as h-ba ngde vi ce s i n e nte r i nga b as ementb ec au se the y b el i ev ed a s uspec t wi tha cri m i nal r eco rd thati ncl ud ed an ag gr avated ass aul t was at hom e a nd had acce ss to w eapons. Id. a t 97 3. The offic er s b eli e v e d t h at n o on e o th er th an M olin a w as in th e ho us e an d “ ha d a m pl e r ea sont o b e co nc erne d abo ut thei r pe rs onalsa f ety
. ” Id. A l though we w er e ca re ful to not sugge st “that the use of fl ash bang devi c es is ap propri ate i n eve rycas e ( orev en m ostcas es) , ” we hel d that th e u s e o ft h e d e v i c e s “ wa s r e a s o n a b l e u n d e r th e c i r c u mst an c es ” a n d d id n ot co n st itu te ex c es siv e fo rc e. Id. M ol i na i s th e mo s tr e l e v a n tc a s e f o r th e i s s u e c o nf ro nti ng us because it is f ro m thi s ci rcui t, i t i s a n exces si ve f or ce c ase i n volv i ng fl ash-bang devi ces, and the discussi on of t h e propri etyo fusi ng such devi ces w as notN o. 08

- 2365 35 di ct a. Unf o r tu na te l y , the c o ur t su bs ta nt i al l y di sc o unt s th e case by sa yi ng tha t M ol i na “e xpr es sl y l i m i te d [ i ts ] ho l di ng to th e circ u m st an c e s p re se n te d .” Ante, at 2 7. B u t n ea rly al l exce ssi ve f or ce c ase s a re f act-s peci fi c and co ntextd ep en d en t, Sc o tt v. E din burg, 346 F. 3d 752, 756 ( 7th C ir. 2003 ) , and that does not l i m i t the r el evance o fsuch ca ses in qu alifie d im m u n ity an aly s es . M ol i na sp eaks for i tself: w here p oli ce a re exec uti ng a sea rch w ar ra nt and bel i eve that a per son w i th a re c or d o fag gr avat ed ass aul t i s a t ho me a l o n e wi th a c c e s s t o we a p o n s , th e u s e o ffl as hb an g d ev ice s is ap p ro p ria te . 3 2 5 F .3d at97 3. H er e, as in M ol i na , no one el se w as pre se nti n the dwel l i ngwher e th e pol i ce used fl ash-bang devi ces to i ncapaci tat e a p erson w ho p ossess ed a w eap o n. Bu t this case i s not on allf ou rs wi th M o lina , m ainly becau se E scob ed o had no history ofag gr avat ed ass aul t a nd the d efe nd ants w er e no t e xec u tin g a se ar c h w ar ra n t. N ev er th ele ss , M ol i na ’ s r el evance to the qua l i fi ed im m uni tya na l y si s he r e i s si g ni fi ca nt an d sh ou ld be rec og n i z e d as th e le ad in g a u th or ity in thi s ci rcui t. Th e c o ur ts ho ul d n o ts i mpl y c o nfi ne M ol i na to i ts f acts an d th en d er ive “d et aile d gu id an c e” from w h at i t c alls

“ ‘ l uc i d a nd u na mbi g uo us ’ di c t a ” i n thr e e e v i de nc e s up p re ss ion ca se s fro m th is c irc u it. A nte, a t 31. I n thos e th r ee cas es , the s ta te m en ts tha t wer e cr i ti ca l o fthe pol i ce’ s use of fl ash-bang devi ces w er e d icta

— as the m aj or i ty opi ni on r i ghtl y r eco gni zes . A l though we have st at ed th at i n l im ite d circ u m st an c es d ict a c an cle ar ly est abl i sh the exi ste nce o fa const i tuti onalr i ght, the dict a m us t be “luc id a n d un am biguou s,” as w he n a cou rt obs er ves t h at cer tai n conduct vi ol ate s aco nsti tuti onal rig h t b u t u l tim at ely h old s t h at th e rig h t w as n ot cle ar ly36 N o. 08

- 2365

e s t a b l i s he d. Hanes v. Z uri ck, 578 F.3d 491 , 4 9 6 ( 7 t h C ir. 2009 ). T h e d i cta i n thos e three cas es does not com e cl ose t o me e t i n gth a th i g h st an d a r d : i n n o n e o fth e m d i d we concl ud e that the use offl ash-ban g devi ces const i tuted excess i ve f or ce. I n U ni t e d S t a tes v. Jon es , 214 F.3d 836 ( 7th Cir. 2000), the de f e nd a nta pp e a l e d the de ni al of hi s mo t i o n t o s up press e v i de nc e tha t wa s o b t a i ne d b y po l i c e du r i ng a no k no cke nt r y i nto h is dwel l i ngus i nga b at te r i ngr am an d a fl ash-bang devi ce. W e cha sti sed the pol i ce’ s use o f th e fl a s h

-b a n gd e v i c e b e c a u s e ( u n l i k e h e r e ) a n i n n o c en t ad u lt a n d ch ild w er e i n sid e t h e a p ar tm en t. Id. a t 83 8. The dist ri ct c ou rt had hel d that the o ffi cer s’ co nd uct was re as on ab le in all res p ec ts ; w e sa id w e w er e “ les s c er ta in,” al though we did notsa y that the di str i ct c ourtwas w r o n g. Id. at83 7. W e a l so sta ted that“pol i ce c annot autom atical ly ” e m plo y fl ash-b an g devi ces j ust be cause th ey are en te rin g t h e ho u se of a d ru g d ea ler

. Id. (em p h as is add ed). That prop osi ti on i s unre m ar kabl e a nd i n f act i m pli es that such devi ces are ap propri ate i n so m e s i tuati ons. In addit i on, we noted that were the a cti on o ne f or pe r s o na l i nj ur y i t “ wo ul d b e a s e r i o us o ne ” ; but Jo nes w as n ot a p er so n al inj u ry ac tio n, “so w h et h er on e w ou ld succee d i s no t s om ethi ng we need[e d to] deci de. ” Id. at 838. I n U ni t e d St at e s v. Fo l ks , 236 F.3d 38 4 (7 th C ir. 20 01 ), a s up pr e s s i o n c a s e s i mi l a r to Jo nes , the defe nd ant a pp eal ed th e d e n i a l o fh i s mo t i o n t o s u p p r e s s e v i d e n c e fr o m a dwel l i ngs ea r chwher e th e po l i ce u se d a fl as h-ba ng dev i ce i n a n un l i t r es i den ce at ni g ht

. Aft erqui ck l y l o o k i ng i nsi de, the offi cer s depl oy ed the devi ce, and w hen they en te r ed the y e nc o unt er ed ana r m ed m ana nd the de f en -N o. 08

- 2365 37

T he cou rt also su g g est s th at Fol ks is u nlik e this case b eca u se 2 th er e w er e p o te n tia lly v io le n t p eo p le p re se n t th er e. A n te, at 27- 28, 30. In d oing so, the court app ears to defi ne viole nt pers ons as onl y thos e who pos e a thr ea tt o pol i c e or othe rs . A per s on who is high on coca ine, ha s a gu n, an d is thr eate nin g to k ill him self i s c e r t a i nl y a p otent i a l l y vi ol e nti nd i vi dua l

. P ol i c e c a nn otbe ex pec t ed to a s s um e t hatwhenthe y e nc ount er s uc h a pe rs on, he pos es no thr ea to fvi ol en c e t o the m m er el y be c aus e he ha s no t pr ev iou sly exp ressly th rea ten ed them or o the rs. d an t. Id. at 387. The co urt deter m i ne d t hat the ev i dence was a dm i ss ibl e unde r the i ne vi tabl e di sc o ve r y doctri ne buta ckno wl edg ed th e se r i o us da m ag e fl as h-ba ng devi ces can ca use, o bser vi ng tha t “[t] he go ver nm ent m ay th us r i sks i g ni fi ca ntc l ai m s f r o m the c ar el es s d ep loy m en t offl ash-bang devices. ” Id. at3 88
. Butf o cus i ngo n the spe ci fi c f ac ts o fthe c as e, the cour t co nc l ude d tha t th e p ol i ce’ s use o fa fl ash-bang devi ce w a s suffi ci en tly car eful because the offi cer s had l oo ked i nto th e re sidence be f o r e to ss i ngthe de vi ce s a nd had c ar r i ed a fi r e ex tingu ish e r t o p u t o u t a n y re su ltin g fire s. Id. atn. 2. The use o f th e dev i ce was j us ti fi ed, we th o ug ht, be ca us e the po li ce’s su spi ci o ns tha t po te nt i al l y v i o l en t peo pl e m i g ht b e at ho m e w er e c o n f i r m ed

. Id. W e di d not s ugges t, how eve r, thatnotusi ng the sa m e ca uti ous m eas u res w oul d necess ar i l y b e a n exces si ve use o ff or ce. Yet here , th e co ur t l i st s th e su ffi ci en t pr ec auti o na r y a ct i o ns the po l i ce t o o ki n Fol ks and tre ats them as i ftheyar e necessa ry m eas ures f or the proper use of fl ash-bang d ev ices
. A nte, 2 at 27, 29

- 30. And i n U nite d State s v. M orris , 349 F
. 3d 1009 (7th Cir. 20 03) , the de f en dan t at te m pte d t o s uppr es s wea po ns38 N o. 08

- 2365

T he cou rt d oe s no t m en tion the sim ilarities b etw een this case 3 a nd M o rr is : as d iscus se d b elow , the officers w ere faced w ith a da nge ro us en tr y poi ntan d bel i eve d t he y c oul d be en c ount er i ng a dang er ous pe rs on. fou n d d u rin g a se ar c h o fh i s res id en c e a n d h is in c u lp at or y s ta te m en ts be c au se th e p olic e h ad u n re a s o n a b ly us ed fl as h-ba ngde vi ce s to f ac i l i ta te the sea r ch

. I n M orris , we c i t e d Jo nes a nd Fol ks f orthe m ani f estp ro p os i ti on t h a t fla sh -b an g d ev ice s a re d an ge ro u s. Id. a t 1 0 1 2
. B u t we al so sta ted tha t th e pol i ce’ s use o fthe devi ces i n that case appeare d to be reaso na ble be ca us e o f th e dan g er o us i nd i vi du al s i nvol ve d , the dangero us entr y poi nt f or pol i ce, and the preca uti onar y m eas ures the offi cer s t oo k: as k i ngwhethe r c hi l dr enwer e pr es en t, i ns pec ting the ar eaw he r e the devi ce s wer e t o be e m pl o y ed, and c ar r y i ng a fire ex tin gu ish er . Id. at 1013 n. 1. W e did not su gg est, how ever, that th e u s e o f fl ash -ban g d evices u nd er diff er en t an d po ss ibl y l es s dan g er o us ci r cumst an ces and w ith few er p re c au tio n s t ak en by p olic e w ou ld n ec es sa rily be unr eas onabl e. S till, the cour t t re ats pol i ce m eas ures th atwer e su ffi ci en t to a ppr o ve e m pl o y m en t o fthe fl as hba ngde vi ce s i n M orris as re q u ire d m ea su re s h er e w h en it re ads M o rris as s uggesti ngtha t “the us e o fa fl as h b an g gr enade i s r eas onabl e only when th er e i s a danger o us s us pe c ta nd a da ng e r o us e nt r y p o i ntf o r the p o l i c e , wh en th e po li ce h ave ch ecke d to see i f inn ocen t ind ivi d ua ls are ar ound be f or e deploy i ng the devi ce, wh en the pol i ce hav e vi sual l y inspected the ar ea w here the device w i l l be u se d an d w h en th e p olic e c ar ry a fire e x tin gu ish er .” A nte, 3 at 28 (em p ha sis add ed ).N o. 08

- 2365 39 The cour t a l so ci tes two cas es f ro m o utsi de t hi s ci rcui t. I n E st ate of Sm it h v. M arasco , 318 F.3d 497, 517 (3d Cir. 2003 ) ( M ar as co I ), the Th i r d Ci r cui t co nc l ude d tha t th e di st r i ctc o ur t er r ed i n g r an tingsum m ar y j udg m en t for th e office rs on th e pla in tiffs ’ ex c es siv e forc e c l aim be ca us e the pl aint i ff s ha d “ pr o ff er ed ev i den ce s uffi ci en t to r equi r e th atthe questi on o fthe r ea so nabl en es s o fthe [ offi cer s’ ] tact i cs be subm i tte d t o a j ury. ” M ar as co Iwas not a qu al i fi ed i m m unity case, and the cour t m er el y hel d that a j ury questi on e xi ste d on w hetherthe f acts es tabl i shed ex c es siv e fo rc e. Id. at 518

. I nd eed, i t “ re cogni ze[ d] that a j ury coul d c oncl ud e” that the f or ce used “w as a reasonab l e r esponse to the thre at the o ffi cer s per cei ved. ” Id. at 51 7. M ar as co Ithus pr ovi des l i ttl e ( i fan y) gui dance he r e: a ho l di ngtha t a par ti cul ar empl o y m en t o ffl as h-ba ng devi ces co ul d ( orco uld not ) be an exce ssi ve use o ff or ce does not cl ear l y e stabl i sh anythi ng. The onl y c ase ci ted by the cour t that actual l y hel d that a parti cul aruse offl ash-ba n g devi ces w as an exce ssi ve appli cati on o ff or ce i s B oyd v. Benton C ounty , 3 74 F
. 3d 773 ( 9th Ci r. 20 04)

. There , the N i nth Cir cui t co ncl ud ed that thro w i ng a fl ash-bang devi ce b l i nd ly i nto a r oo m o c c u p i e d b y up t o e i g h ti n n o c e n tb y s t a n d e r s a n d c r i min al s u sp ec ts w as u n c on st itu tio n ally ex c es siv e fo rc e. Id. at 77 9. H en c e, in th e N in th C irc u it it a p p ea rs to be cle ar ly es tabl i sh ed th atwhenpur su i nga r m ed su spe ct s, the p oli ce c annot bl i nd l y t oss a fl ash-bang devi ce into a r o o m occupi ed byup to e i ghtpe o pl e who wer e unc o nne cted to the crim e un d e r i n vest igation. H ere, how ever, i n shar p and m ate ria l co ntra st to Boyd, the r e wer e no i nnocent b yst anders prese nt but onl y a n ar m ed, sui ci dal40 N o. 08

- 2365 i nd i vi du alwh o w as hi gh on coca i ne. A nd the defendants’ failu re to l oo k into Escobedo’ s be droo m befor e they deploy ed the flas h-ba ng devi ce i s no t s urpri si ng: he ha d bar ri caded the doo r. M or eov er, i n thi s ci rc uit M ol i na dem onst ra tes thati t i s no t unre aso nabl e f orpol ice t o use fl as h-ba ng d evices whenthe y b el i ev e th atthe o nl y o cc up an t in a d w ellin g is a rm ed an d th u s t h ey h av e “ am p le re as on to b e con c er n ed ab ou t th eir p er so n al s afe ty .” 32 5 F .3d at97 3. M ol i na

— not Boyd

— i s th e con tr o l l i ng pr ec ede nt, a nd i t su ppl i ed a so und b as i s f o r the de f en d an ts ’ u se of th e fla sh -b an g d ev ice s. P er h ap s t h e o n ly th in g c lear her e i s that the cas es the c ourtr el i es up on d id n ot giv e t h e d efe n d an ts n ot ice an d it w as n ot cle ar ly e s t a b l i s h e d th a tth e i r c o n d u c tw a s u n l a wfu l

. I n my vi ew , and i n the w or ds ofthe Suprem e Cour t, [ t] hese

. . . cas es tak en toge therundoubtedlysho w that th is area i s one in w h ic h th e resu lt dep en d s very m u c h o n the f acts o fea ch cas e. N one ofthem square l y g ove rns th e case here ; theydo s ugges t that [ the o ffi cer s’ ] act i ons f el l in the “haz y b or der b etween ex ce ss i ve a nd a cc ept ab l e f o r ce . ” The ca se s byno mean s “c l ea r l y e st ab l i sh ” th at[ th ei r ] c o nduct v i o l at ed th e Four th A m endm ent. B rossea u v . Ha ug en , 5 4 3 U
. S

. 1 9 4 , 2 0 1 ( 2 0 0 4 ) ( p e r c u r i a m) (citation om itted ). Thi s ca se i s o bvi o us l y no t o ve r . The que st i o n r emai ns w h et h er it w as rea so n ab le fo r th e p olic e t o go to th is ex te nti n e ff ec t to r escue a man who was thr ea te ni ng su i c i de

. I a s s ume the b ui l di ng ha d b e e n c l e a r e d o fo ther o c c u p a n t s ( g i v e n th e e x t e n s i v e t e a r g a s u s e , a ny o neN o. 08

- 2365 41

rem aining w ou ld h ave li kely ex ited on th eir ow n ac cord ). Once com m unica ti ons bro ke do w n a n d the S W A T tea m arrived , the o ff ic e rs i n ch arge th ou gh t it w as ne cess ary t o em plo y the s e e xt r e me r e s o ur c e s wh e n the o nl y a ppar en t th r ea t was tha t o fEs co be do t o hi m se l f

. Once the p lace w as satu r a t e d w ith tear gas an d the four offi cers w er e o rd er ed to en te r th e a p ar tm en t, a n ew sc en ar io in vo lvin g t h e u se of flas h -b an g d ev ice s e m er ge d . In ord er to det erm ine w ha t is reas ona ble un d er thes e circumst an ce s, the c ondi ti o ns tha t ex i st ed when th e f o ur of f i ce r s r e a c he d the a pa r t men tdo o r h a v e t o b e i s o l a t ed an d s epa r at ed f r o m the o r i g i na l de ci si o n to de pl o y the SW A T tea m an d t o use wh at w as obvi ousl y a n exces si ve am ou nt o f t e a r g a s . I n o the r wo r ds , r e g a r dl e s s o f w hetherthe i ni ti ala ssa ultand tea r gas sa tura ti on was re aso nabl e, atthi s poi nt the f our offi cer s were or de red to f o r ce the i r wayi n. W hen the y r ea ch ed th e do o r o fthe apa r tment, the y wer e wea r i ngg as mask s be cause o fthe te a r g a s s a t ur a t i o n. Unfo r t un a t e l y , thi s n e c e s s i t y l i mite d thei r vi si on a nd thei r hear i ng. They knew Escobe do w as hi gh o n d ru gs, was i n posse ssi on o fa gun, and had r efus ed to c o m e o ut
. Cl ea r l y thi s pr es en te d a da ng er o us entr y poi nt f orthe offi cer s, wh i ch m ay have j usti fi ed em plo ym ent of t h e fl ash-bang devi ces. W hen they re ac h ed th e b ed ro om d oo r th at w as su b st an tia lly bl ock ed, ot h er than t o re tr eat, the fl ash-bang devi ces m ayha ve b ee n the i r s afes t o pti o n. Inco n c lu sio n, th e la w atth e t im e o f th e in c id e n t d id n ot cle ar l y e stabl i sh thatthe defe nd ants’ em plo ym ent o f fl ash-bang devi ces w as an unconsti tu ti onalappli cati on of for c e, n or w as th eir u se of su c h d ev ice s p at en tly42 N o. 08

- 2365 vi ol ati ve of Escobedo’ s F ourth A m endm ent r i ghts. There

f or e, Iwould r eve rs e the d i str i ct court ’ s co ntra rydeci si on an d co n c lu d e t h a t t h e d efe n d an ts are en tit led to qu alifi ed i m m uni tyf o r the i r e m pl o y m en t o fthe fl ash-ban g devi ces.

4- 5- 10