2006 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 8-1-2006 

# Gr a ye r v . E di son P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-1623

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" Gr a ye r v . E d i s on" (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 639. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/639NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 05- 1623 LAURA GRAYER; M AR I E F L OYD v. TOW NSH I P OF EDI SON ; EDI SON POLI CE D EPARTM ENT; DE T E CT I VE E DWARD WHE E L E R; DE T E CT I VE S GT . M AR K ANDE RK O; DE T E CT I VE RI CH AR D B UC K; OF F I CE R D AVI D S T E RN ; DETECTI VE A ND Y N AG Y, J R. ; OFFI CER K OLE; P OL I CE CH I E F E DWARD C OS T E L L O; J O H N D O E , 1- 10, s ai d names be i ng fi ct i t i ous E d w ard W h ee ler, A ppel l ant

N o. 05- 1624 LAURA GRAYER; M AR I E F L OYD v. TOW NSH I P OF EDI SON ; EDI SON POLI CE D EPARTM ENT; DE T E CT I VE E DWARD WHE E L E R; DE T E CT I VE S GT . M AR K ANDE RK O; DE T E CT I VE RI CH AR D B UC K; OF F I CE R D AVI D S T E RN ; DETECTI VE A ND Y N AG Y, J R. ; OFFI CER K OLE; P OL I CE CH I E F E DWARD C OS T E L L O; J O H N D O E , 1- 10, s ai d names be i ng fi ct i t i ous

M ark A nderko, A ppel l antT h e H o n o ra b le E u g e n e E . S iler, S e n io r C irc u it Ju d g e , U n ited S tate s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls * f o r t h e S ix th C ir c u it, s ittin g b yd e s ig n a tio n . 2 N o. 05- 1994 LAURA GRAYER; M AR I E F L OYD v. TOW NSH I P OF EDI SON ; EDI SON POLI CE D EPARTM ENT; DE T E CT I VE E DWARD WHE E L E R; DE T E CT I VE S GT . M AR K ANDE RK O; DE T E CT I VE RI CH AR D B UC K; OF F I CE DAVI D S T E RN ;

DETECTI VE A ND Y N AG Y, J R. ; OFFI CER K OLE; P OL I CE CH I E F E DWARD C OS T E L L O; J OHN DO E , 1 - 1 0 , S AI D NAMES BE I NG F I CT I T I OUS

T ow ns hi p of Edi s on, A ppel l ant APP EAL F ROM THE UNI TE D ST ATE S DI S TRI CT C OURT

FOR TH E DI STRI CT O F NEW J ERSEY D . C . C i vi l 02- cv- 02969 D i s t r i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e J os e L. L i nar es Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 27, 2006 B efore: B A R R Y , V A N A N T W E R P E N and S ILE R , C i rcui tJudg es * ( O pi ni on Fi l ed: A ugus t1, 2006)3 __________ OP I NI ON

B A R R Y , C i r cui tJ udge A ppel l ees L aur a G r ay erand M ar i e Fl oy d br oughts ui ti n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ct C our tforthe D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s eypur s uantt o 42 U . S. C . § 1983 agai ns ta hos tof d ef en d an ts, inclu d ing ap p ell an ts D etec ti v e S g t. M ark A n d erk o an d D etec ti v e E d w ard W heel erof the Tow ns hi p of Edi s on pol i ce de par t m ent . A tthe s um m aryj udgm ents t age, a p p e lla n ts a s s e rt e d th e d e f e n s e o f q u a lif ie d im m u n ity, w h ic h th e D is tr ic t C o u rt re je c te d . W e w ill re v e rse th e ju d g m e n t o f th e D istric t C o u rt.

I. W e deri ve o ur j uri sdi ct i on from 28 U . S . C . § 1 29 1. A l t ho ug h the cl ai m s agai nst A nderko and W heel erar e bef or e us on deni al s of s um m aryj udgm ent , w hi ch ar e not gener al l yappea l abl e, t hi s appea l i s pr oper l ybefor e us beca us e the i s s ue i n t he D i s t r i ct C o u rt w a s a p p e llan ts’ e n tit lem e n t to q u a lifie d im m u n ity . Q u a lifie d im m u n ityp ro tec ts o f f icia ls f ro m su it, n o t ju st liab ili ty , an d th u s “ is e f f e c tiv e lylo st” w h e n a c a se p ro c e e d s to trial. Mitch e ll v. Fo rs

y th , 4 7 2 U .S . 5 1 1 , 5 2 6 (1 9 8 5 ); see McKee v. H art , 436 F. 3d 165, 168- 69 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . T her efor e, “[w ] hen a de fenda ntm oves fors um m aryj udgm ent b a se d o n q u a lifie d im m u n ity , the d e n ial o f th e m o tio n m a yb e a p p e a led im m e d iate ly underthe col l at er al - or derdoctr i ne. . . . ” For bes v. Tw p. of Low erMer i on , 313 F. 3d 144,T he D i s t r i ctC our tal s o deni ed the Tow ns hi p’ s m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm enton t he 1 N e w J e rs e yT o rt C la im s A c t c la im s b ro u g h t a g a in s t it, a d e n ia l th e T o w n s h ip a p p e a ls . W e w i l l notcons i dert he Tow ns hi p’ s appea l . W e have r ecogni zed that“‘ t he r i ghtt o an i nt er l ocut or yappea l fr om t he deni al of a c l ai m of abs ol ut e orqual i fi ed i m m uni t yunder s t at e l aw can onl yexi s tw her e the s t at e has ext ended a n under l y i ng s ubs t ant i ve r i ghtt o be f re e f ro m th e b u rd e n s o f

lit ig a tio n a risin g f

ro m a c ts ta k e n in th e c o u rse o f [ o f f icia l] d u ti es.’” B r ow n v. G r abow s ki , 922 F. 2d 1097, 1106- 07 ( 3d C i r . 1990) ( quot i ng M ar r i cal v. D etr oi tN

ew s , I nc. , 805 F. 2d 169, 172 ( 6th C i r . 1986) ) ( al t er at i on i n Br o wn ). “N ew J er s eyconfe r s no s uch r i ght . ” R iva s v . C ity o f P a ss a ic , 365 F. 3d 181, 193 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( “[W ] e l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o cons i der[the pol i ce of fi cer s ’ ] ar gum ent s thatthe D i s t r i ct C o u rterred in d en y ing their de fe n se o f q u ali fied im m u n ityu n d er N ew Jerse y ’s T o rt C laim s A c t.”); c

f
. Br o wn , 922 F. 2d at1108 ( “The T or tC l ai m s A ct ’ s dom i nant cons i der at i on of i m m uni t yand pol i cyof det err ence ar e equa l l ycons i s t ent. . . w i t h t he v iew th a t th e A c t w a s in ten d e d to sh ield p u b lic o f f icia ls a n d e n tit ies o n lyf ro m u lti m a te l i abi l i ty– and n o t i nit i al l yfrom sui t . ”) ( em ph asi s i n o ri ginal ). W e w i l l , therefore, dis m i ss th e T o w n s h ip ’s a p p e a l f o r l a c k o f

ju ri s d ic tio n .

4 1 4 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). 1

“ W e e x e rc ise p len a ryre v iew o v e r th e D istric t C o u rt’s c o n c lu sio n s o f law in its qual i fi ed i m m uni t yanal y s i s , ” McKee , 436 F. 3d at169, and “w e may‘ r evi ew w hethert he se t o f f a c ts id e n tifie d b yth e d istric t co u rt is su f f icie n t to e sta b lish a v io latio n o f a c lea rly estab li sh ed co n sti tuti o n al ri g h t, ’ bu t w e m ayn o t ‘ co n side r w h ethe r th e d istri ct co u rt c o rre c tlyid e n tifie d th e se t o f f a c ts th a t th e su m m a ryju d g m e n t re c o rd is s u f f icie n t to pr ove. ’ ” For bes , 313 F. 3d at147 ( quot i ng Z icc a rd i v. C ity o f P h ila d e lp h ia , 288 F. 3d 57, 6 1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 2 )) . II. B eca us e w e w r i t e pr i m ar i l yforthe part i es , w e w i l l , qui t e l i t er al l y , cutr i ghtt o t he chas e. O n J une 22, 2000, E di s on pol i ce of fi cer s , l ed byappel l antA nderko, w er e l ooki ngT he r ecor d i ndi cat es t hatj us tpr i ort o t he t i m e the off i cer s ent er ed the fr ontof the 2 apart m entw i t h G r ay ert heyw er e not i fi ed bythe off i cer s i n t he r earthatR ai for d coul d be s e e n in s id e . ( See A nderko D ep. at97- 98, J A 163a- 64a; W heel erD ep. at116, J A 307a (“ R ig h t ab o u t [ th e tim e G ra y e r w a s o p e n in g th e d o o r] I g u e ss [ R a if o rd ] w a s ta lk in g to so m e o f th e o f f ice rs o u t b a c k so w e k n e w f o r su re n o w a t th is p o in t th a t h e w a s in ther e. ”) ; K ol e D ep. at64, J A 569a; St ern D ep. at34- 35, J A 643a. ) I ndeed, A nderko w as q u esti o n ed d u ri n g stat e c o u rtp roc ee d ing s ab o u t R aifo rd’s c o m m u n icati o n s w ith o ff icers i n th e r e a ro f

t h e a p a r t me n tp r i o rt o An d e r k o ’ s e n t r y . ( J A9 4 9 a - 5 0 a ( [ Q] : “ I s i tf a i rf o rme t o s a yth a tRa i f

o r d v e rb a l l yg a v e h i ms e l f t o th e d e t e c t i v e s i n th e r e a ro f th e b u i l d i n g ?” [A n d erk o ]: “R aifo rd m ad e a v erb al ac clam ati o n to the d etec ti v es to the re ar. . . . ”).) 5 forand eve ntual l ys pot t ed Thom as R ai for d, forw hom theyhad an a r r es tw arr antfor a g g ra v a te d a s s a u lt. U p o n s e e in g th e p o lic e , R a if o rd ra n a n d th e o f

f ic e rs g a v e c h a s e . R ai ford en t ered the b ack o f a ne arbyapart m ent and o ffi cers foll ow ed h i m i n, bu tl ost s ig h t o f h im . R a if

o rd h a d ru n o u t th e f

ro n t o f th e a p a rt m e n t a n d c o u ld n o t b e lo c a te d . A nderko had r eas on t o bel i eve Rai for d t her eaf t erent er ed the nea rbyapart m entof R ai for d’ s aunt , appel l ee Laur a G r ay er . A nderko or der ed thr ee of fi cer s t o t he r earof the bui l di ng and he, al ong w i t h t w o ot heroffi cer s , i ncl udi ng appel l antW heel er , s t ay ed i n the fr ont . Shor t l yt her eaf

t er , G r ay err eturned home t o fi nd the pol i ce s urr oundi ng her b u ild in g . A n d e rk o a p p ro a c h e d h e r, ex p lain e d th e situ a tio n , an d re q u e ste d h e r c o n se n t to e n ter h e r a p a rtm e n t to a rre st R a if o rd . G ra y e r c o n ten d s th a t sh e g a v e A n d e rk o , an d o n ly A n d e rk o , c o n s e n t to e n te r. G r ay erl ed A nderko, W heel er , and one otherpol i ce of fi cert o herfr ontdoor . She 2
u n lo c k e d th e d o o r a n d e n te re d th e a p a rt m e n t f ir s t, c a llin g u p th e s ta ir s f o r R a if o rd . R ai for d r es ponded, and A nderko i ns t ruct ed hi m t o come dow n t he s t ai r s w i t h hi s handsW heel ercl ai m ed thatG r ay erus ed for ce i n herat t empt s t o pr eventhi m fr om openi ng 3 the d o o r. See G r ay erD ep. at32, J A 410a ( “H e pus hed me t o t he s i de and ope ned the doorand 4 letthe o ther c o p s in.”). M ea n w h il e, R aifo rd w as y ell ing at th e o ff icers so m ethin g to the ef fe ct of “D o n ’th u rt 5 m yaunt . ” M or eover , addi t i onal i ndi vi dual s had bee n al l ow ed thr ough t he bac k doorand w ere p rese n t w h en W h ee ler arrested G ray er. 6 up. R ai for d compl i ed, and A nderko and the otheroffi cerpr ocee ded t o det ai n hi m att he f o o t o f th e s ta ir s , n e a r t h e f

ro n t d o o r. A tt hatpoi nt , W heel erbegan w al ki ng t ow ar d t he adj oi ni ng ki t chen i n t he r earof the apa r t m ent , w her e the bac k doorw as l ocat ed, t o not i fythe off i cer s i n t he r earthat R ai for d had bee n det ai ned. B efor e he w as abl e t o do s o, how ever , G r ay ergotbetw een W heel erand the doorand t ol d hi m nott o open i t . G r ay ert es t i fi ed thatW heel erpus hed 3 her as i de i n or dert o r eac h t he door . U pon openi ng the door , addi t i onal offi cer s ent er ed the apa r t m ent , al ong w i t h t w o by s t ander s . G r ay ert es t i fi ed that , atthi s poi nt , W heel er 4
a g a in p u s h e d h e r a w a yw ith h is a rm a n d tw is te d h e r a rm b e h in d h e r b a c k to h a n d c u f f h e r. She w as arr es t ed, but , s he t es t i fi ed, w as noti nform ed pr i ort o t he appl i cat i on of the cuf fs th a t sh e w a s u n d e r a rre st. 5 W hi l e thes e eve nt s i n t he ki t chen w er e t aki ng pl ace , M ar i e Fl oy d, w ho l i ved next doort o G r ay erand w as herfos t ers i s t er , came t o G r ay er ’ s apart m entt o s ee w hatw as happeni ng. Pol i ce of

fi cer s att he fr ontof the hous e l etherand anothers i s t er , A l m a, ent er the a p artm en t. F loy d p roc ee d ed tow ard the re ar o f th e a p artm en t bu t, sh e testi fied , b ef o re7

s h e c o u ld m a k e it in to th e k itc h e n , W h e e le r p u n c h e d h e r i n th e c h e s t w ith o u t p ro v o c a tio n . F lo y d f e ll b a c k w a rd a n d w a s c a u g h t b yA lm a . G r ay erand Fl oy d fi l ed s ui ti n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our ton J une 21, 2002 agai ns tt he Tow ns hi p of Edi s on, t he Edi s on Pol i ce D epart m ent , the chi ef of pol i ce, W heel er , A nderko, and the otherpol i ce of fi cer s pr es enton J une 22, 2000, r ai s i ng a num berof fe der al and s t at e ca us es of ac t i on. Forourpurpos es , i ts uffi ces t o s aythat appel l ees ’ § 1983 caus es of ac t i on agai ns tA nderko and W heel erw er e bas ed on a p p e lle e s ’ c la im s , in tera lia , t hat the en t ryi nto G ray er’ s hom e and the u se of fo rce agai nst them vi ol at ed the C ons t i tut i on. T he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed appe l l ant s ’ as s ert i ons of qual i fi ed i m m uni t y , and thi s appea l fol l ow ed. III . “G overnm entoffi ci al s per form i ng di s cr et i onaryfunct i ons ar e ‘ s hi el ded fr om l i abi l i tyforci vi l damages i ns ofaras thei rconductdoes notvi ol at e cl ear l yes t abl i s hed statu toryo r co n sti tuti o n al ri g h ts of w h ich a rea so n ab le pe rson w o u ld h av e k n o w n . ’” Shar r arv. Fel

s i ng , 128 F. 3d 810, 826 ( 3d C i r . 1997) ( quot i ng H a rlo w v . F itzg e ra ld , 457 U . S. 800, 818 ( 1982) ) . C our t s m us ti nqui r e “w hethera r eas onabl e off i cercoul d have bel i eved thathi s orherconductw as l aw ful , i n l i ghtof the cl ear l yes t abl i s hed l aw and the i nform at i on i n t he off

i cer ’ s pos s es s i on. ” I

d. U lti m a tely , if th e o f

f ice rs h e re “ ‘re a so n a b ly butm i s t akenl y ’ concl ude[d] t hatt hei rconductcomport [ed] w i t h t he r equi r ement s of the Four th A m endment , ” they“ar e ent i t l ed t o i m m uni t y . ” I d. ( quot i ng H

unt erv. B r

yant , 5028

U . S. 224, 227 ( 1991) ( percur i am)) . Forthe r eas ons w e out l i ne bel ow , A nderko and W h e e l e ra r e e n t i t l e d t o i m m u n i t y. A. T he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed A nderko’ s m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent , det erm i ni ng that A nd erko, “byexecu t i ng a w arr antl ess s earch and excee ding t he b ou nd s of M s. G ray er’s co n sen t, k n o w ing lyv iolated s ett led law . ” (D ist . C t. O p . at 7, JA 1 6 a.) M or eover , t he D i s t r i ctC our tpr es erved the cl ai m s of s upervi s oryl i abi l i t yagai ns tA nderko bas ed on hi s al l eged f

ai l ur e t o comm uni cat e t o W heel erthe l i m i t at i ons G r ay erpl ace d on c o n s e n t. (I

d. at14 -15, JA 23 a-24a. ) W e dis agree w i t h b oth deci si on s. “I ti s axi om at i c thatt he ‘ phy s i cal entr yof the home i s the chi ef e vi l agai ns tw hi ch the w or di ng of the Four t h A m endmenti s di r ect ed. ’ ” W e lsh v . W isc o n sin , 466 U . S. 740, 748 ( 1984) ( quot i ng U

nited S tates v. U

nited S tates D istri ctC ou rt , 407 U . S. 297, 313 (19 7 2 )). T h ere fo re, “[w ]arran tl ess s ea rch es a n d seizu res insid e so m eo n e’s h o m e . . . are pr es um pt i vel yunr eas onabl e unl es s t he occ upant s cons entorpr obabl e ca us e and exi gent ci r cumst ance s exi s tt o j us t i fyt he i nt rus i on. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. C ol es , 437 F. 3d 361, 365 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) . O ne exa m pl e of e xi gentci r cumst ance s i s “hot pur s ui tof a s us pect ed fe l on. ” Id
. a t 3 6 6 . H ere , in a s ep ara te op inion d ec iding the T o w n sh ip’s m o ti o n fo r sum m ary j udgm ent , t he D i s t r i ctC our tfound “thata fl eei ng and pot ent i al l ydanger ous s us pect s o u g h t r e f

u g e in M s . G ra y e r’ s a p a rt m e n t.” (D is t. C t. L e tte r O rd e r a n d O p . a t 2 , A 2 6 a .)9

T he Supr eme C our thas m ade c l eart hat“a s us pectm aynotdefe atan arr es tw hi ch has been s eti n m ot i on i n a publ i c pl ace , and i s ther efor e pr oper. . . , bythe expe di entof es capi ng t o a pr i vat e pl ace . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Santana , 427 U . S. 38, 43 ( 1976) . W e nee d notdet erm i ne w hethert he entr yof G r ay er ’ s hom e w oul d fal l s quar el yw i t hi n t he hot pur s ui texce pt i on t o t he w arr antr equi r ement . Pol i ce of fi cer s had bee n chas i ng R ai for d, f o r w h o m th e yh a d a n a rre st w a rra n t, l o st s ig h t o f h im , h a d re a so n to b e liev e h e w a s in G r ay er ’ s apart m ent , and, appar ent l y , s aw hi m fr om the r earof the bui l di ng atorar ound th e tim e A n d e rk o a n d W h e e ler e n ter e d th e b u ild in g . W e c o n c lu d e , b a se d o n th e f a c ts i dent i fi ed byt he D i s t r i ctC our t , t hatan obj ect i vel yr eas onabl e pol i ce of fi cercoul d bel i eve that the p u rsuit of

R aifo rd in to G ray er’s h o m e, ev en in the ab sen ce o f th e o w n er’s c o n s e n t, w a s c o n s titu tio n a l. C f. Sa u c ierv . Ka tz , 533 U . S. 194, 206 ( 2001) ( “[E] ven i f a c o u rt w e re to h o ld th a t th e o f f ic e r v io la te d th e F o u rt h A m e n d m e n t . . . A nders on still o p e ra tes to g ra n t o f

f ice rs im m u n ityf

o r re a so n a b le m ista k e s a s to th e leg a lityo f th e ir ac ti o n s. ”). M or eover , her e, “A nderko s oughtM s . G r ay er ’ s cons entt o ent erherapart m entand appr ehend the s us pect , ” and “ s om e mannerof cons entw as gr ant ed. ” ( D i s t . C t . L et t er O r derand O p. at2, J A 26a. ) “U nders uch a s cena r i o, atl eas tfr om the per s pect i ve of the offi cer s on t he gr ound, t he Four t h A m endmenti s s ues ar e, atbes t , nuance d. ” (Id
. at3, J 27a) I n s hor t , i ti s notatal l cl eart hatA nderko w as m i s t aken i n bel i evi ng he coul d ent er G r ay er ’ s hous e w i t houta s ear ch w arr ant , and i f he w er e, thatm i s t ake – i n l i ghtof theM o re o v e r, th e re is n o in d ica tio n th a t A n d e rk o w a s p e rso n a llyin v o lv e d o r a c tu a lly 6 k n e w a n d a c q u ie s c e d in W h e e le r’ s a lle g e d v io la tiv e a c tiv itie s in th e k itc h e n . See R obi ns on v. C i t

y of P i t t s bur gh , 1 2 0 F .3 d 1 2 8 6 , 1 2 9 4 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 7 ). H e th e re f o re is e n tit led to su m m a ryju d g m e n t o n th e su p e rv iso ryliab ili tyc laim s a g a in st h im a s w e ll. 10 e x ig e n c ya n d a t le a s t a m e a s u re o f c o n s e n t – w a s re a s o n a b le . C f. H unt er , 502 U . S. at228 ( “[T] he courts houl d as k w hethert he age nt s act ed r eas onabl yunders et t l ed l aw i n t he ci r cumst ance s , notw hetheranotherr eas onabl e, orm or e r eas onabl e, i nt erpr et at i on of the e v e n ts c a n b e c o n stru c ted f iv e y e a rs a f

ter th e f a c t.”); For bes , 313 F. 3d at148 ( “I f an offi ci al coul d have r eas onabl ybel i eved thathi s orheract i ons w er e l aw ful , the off i ci al rec eive s im m u n ityev en if i n fa ct th e a cti o n s w ere n o t l aw fu l. ”). 6 B. T u rnin g to G ray er’s claim o f e x ce ssive fo rce ag ains t W h ee ler, the D istri ct C o u rt found thatG r ay er ’ s t es t i m onyt hatW heel er“i nt ent i onal l ypus hed heroutof hi s w ayand knocked he ront o t he ki t chen t abl e, al l befor e i ndi cat i ng thathe w as arr es t i ng her , ” w as “s uffi ci ent , as s um i ng t hati ti s t rut hful , t o es t abl i s h obj ect i vel yunr eas onabl e for ce. ” ( D i s t . C t . O p. at8, J A 17a ( emphasi s r emoved) . ) A gai n, w e di s agr ee. W heel erw as perm i s s i bl yi n the hous e t o eff ectuat e the arr es tof R ai for d. O nce ther e, he w as perm i t t ed t o t ake r eas onabl e meas ur es t o ens ur e the s afe t yof off i cer s and th e s u s p e c t, in c lu d in g e n te ri n g th e a d jo in in g k itc h e n a n d o p e n in g th e b a c k d o o r. C f. M a ry la n d v . B u ie , 494 U . S. 325, 327, 334 ( 1990) ( perm i t t i ng “a qui ck and l i m i t ed s ear ch of pr emi s es , i nci dentt o an arr es tand conduc t ed t o pr ot ectthe s afe t yof pol i ceD ist . C t. O p . at 12 , JA 2 1 a (“ . . . itis certainlyrea so n ab le fo r po li ce o ff icers to se cu re 7 an u n fa m il iar area incid en t t o an o n g o ing arrest . . . “). 11 o f f ice rs o r o th e rs” w h ich in c lu d e s s e a rc h in g “ c lo se ts a n d o th e r sp a c e s im m e d iate ly ad joining the p lace o f a rrest from w h ich a n att ac k co u ld b e im m ed iat elylaun ch ed ”). 7 G r ay er ’ s ow n acc ountof w hathappene d i n t he ki t chen makes cl earthats he at t empt ed t o i nt er ceptW heel erand pr eventhi m fr om openi ng the bac k door . B ydoi ng s o , s h e in te rf

e re d w ith h is a tte m p t to s e c u re th e h o u s e a n d c o m p le te th e a rr e s t o f R a if o rd . H e , the re f

o re , w a s p e rm itt e d to u se a re a so n a b le a m o u n t o f f o rc e to g e t to th e d o o r if nece s s ary . Si m i l ar l y , t he for ce us ed byW heel eri n t he mom entbefor e and w hi l e cuf fi ng G r ay erdoes notm ove hi s conductout s i de the pr ot ect i on of qual i fi ed i m m uni t y . “N ot ev eryp u sh o r sho v e, ev en if i t m aylat er se em u n n ec essa ryin the p ea ce o f a jud g e’s chamber s , vi ol at es t he Four t h A m endment . ” G r aham v. C onnor , 490 U . S. 386, 396 (19 8 9 ) (cit ati o n an d interna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). H e re , b ya ll ac c o u n ts, W h e e ler w a s “ f o rc e d to m a k e sp lit -se c o n d ju d g m e n ts – in ci r cumst ance s t hat[w er e] t ens e, uncert ai n, and r api dl yevol vi ng – aboutthe amountof for ce that[w as ] nece s s aryi n [the] par t i cul ars i tuat i on. ” I d. at396- 97. T he ci r cumst ance s a s id e n tifie d b yth e D istric t C o u rt p e rm itt e d th e o f f ice r to a p p lya m e a su re o f f o rc e to r eac h the bac k doorand s ecur e thos e w ho at t empt ed t o i nt er fer e. T he for ce appl i ed her e, w e not e, i nfl i ct ed no i nj ur yupon G r ay er . W hi l e “[ w ] e do notagr ee thatthe abs ence of phy s i cal i nj ur ynece s s ar i l ys i gni fi es thatthe for ce ha s notbeen e xces s i ve, . . . the fa ctt hatW hi l e, of cour s e, cr edi bi l i t yi s notforus t o deci de, i tdoes s t r i ke us as s om ew hat 8 im p lau sib le th a t W h e e ler ’s f irst lin e o f

d e f e n se a g a in st a w o m a n in h e r m id -six ties w o u ld b e a c lo s e d f

is t p u n c h to th e c h e s t. 12 the phy s i cal for ce a ppl i ed w as of s uch an e xt entas t o l ead t o i nj uryi s i ndeed a r el evant fac t ort o be cons i der ed as partof the t ot al i t y . ” Shar r ar , 128 F. 3d at822. I n t hi s cas e, bas ed on the as s er t i ons of G r ay erand the fa ct s i dent i fi ed bythe D i s t r i ctC our t , W heel er u s e o f f o rc e w a s o b

je c tiv e ly re a s o n a b le u n d e r t h e c ir c u m s ta n c e s . C. S o , too , w a s W h e e ler ’s u se o f f o rc e a g a in st F lo y d in th e c o u rse o f y e t an o th e r sp lit s econd j udgm enti ti s notdi s put ed he w as r equi r ed t o m ake i n an undi s put edl ybr i ef but tum ul tuous s i tuat i on. I tbear s m ent i on, forw hati ti s w or t h, thatFl oy d’ s cl ai m of exce s s i ve for ce oc cupi es butone par agr aph ( ¶ 113) of the 128- par agr aph and mor e than th ir ty-p a g e S ta te m e n t o f F a c ts a p p e lle e s h a v e p re s e n te d in th e irb ri e f to th is C o u rt . (A p p ell ee s’ B r. at 6-3 7 . ) A s n o ted a b o v e, F loy d co n tend s tha t as sh e w as a p p roa ch ing the k it ch en , W h ee ler, appar ent l youtof the bl ue, punched he rw i t h a cl os ed fi s ti n t he che s t , s endi ng her backw ar ds . A ccor di ng t o W heel er , as he w as cuff i ng G r ay er , a hea vy - s etbl ack w om an 8 he di d notknow w as “pul l i ng on m yarm s t o t r yt o fr ee M r s . G r ay er , ” J A 333a- 34a, and, a s th e D istric t C o u rt e x p lain e d W h e e ler ’s v e rsio n o f th e f a c ts, “ h e m e re lyu se d h is o u ts tr e tc h e d a rm to s h o v e h e r o u t o f th e w a y .” (D is t. C t. O p . a t 4 , J A 1 3 a .)13

F lo y d w o u ld h a v e u s f

in d th a t term in o lo g ym a tters , an d th a t b e c a u se sh e sa y s it
w as a “punc h” ( and nota “pus h ors hove”) , “hi s t or i cal fac t s m at er i al t o” the ques t i on of

“ w h e th e r t h e a c tio n s o f [ W h e e le r] w e re o b

je c tiv e ly re a s o n a b le ” a re d is p u te d . See Shar r ar , 1 2 8 F .3 d a t 8 2 8 . W e d e c lin e to f in d th a t th e te rm in o lo g ym a tte rs h e re . U n d e r th e c irc u m sta n c e s o f th is c a se , the m e re u se o f th e w o rd “ p u n c h ” is s im p ly notenough t o t ake thi s cl ai m t o a j ury . M os ti m por t ant l y , G r ay er , w ho cl ear l yhas her ow n compl ai nt s aboutW heel er , s aw the i nci dentand conf i r m s the es s ent i al part s of W heeler ’ s acc ountof w hathappene d w i t h Fl oy d. She agr ees w i t h hi m that , as s he w as bei ng cuff

ed, Fl oy d w as w al ki ng up, appar ent l yfr om behi nd W heel er . W heel erpus hed h is a rm o u t to th e s id e a n d “ s h o v e d h e r b a c k ,” s h e lo s t h e r b a la n c e , a n d A lm a c a u g h t h e r. G ra y e r, w h o sa w w h a t h a p p e n e d , d o e s n o t re m e m b e r a n yp u n c h , m u c h les s a p u n c h w ith a cl os ed fi s t . J A 414a. O ne us e of a w or d bel i ed byal l the r el evantevi dence of thatone br i ef c ont acti s s i m pl ynotenough t o cal l i nt o di s put e the obj ect i vel yr eas onabl e ac t i on W h e e le r t o o k v is -a -v is F lo y d d u ri n g th e p o te n tia lly e x p lo s iv e s itu a tio n in th e k itc h e n . I V. F o r th e f o reg o ing rea so n s, w e w il l r ev erse the d en ial o f A n d erk o ’s an d W h ee ler’s m ot i ons fors um m aryj udgm ent . Fur t herm or e, w e w i l l di s m i s s the appe al bythe T o w n sh ip o f E d ison fo r l ac k o f ju ri sd ict ion , an d rem an d fo r fu rth er p roc ee d ing s b ef o re th e D is tr ic t C o u rt .