### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT J uly 30, 20 04 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ N o. 03- 1126 4

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ D
. C. D oc ke t N o. 99- 0010 4 C V -D F- 3 P A M EL A GA R R ET T, i n d i v i du a l l y, f
. n . a . Er i c Wi l l i a m Ir

b y, f
. n . a . Va l e r i e Ni c o l e I r

b y, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us ATHENS-CLARKE COUNTY, GEORGIA, ATHENS-CLARKE COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al ., D ef en dants , RA Y M O N D VO N AN D ER S O N , I I , i n d i v i du a l l y, and in his official c apacity as a P olice Of

ficer w iththe A the ns- Cl ar

ke Co unty

P oli ce D ep ar

tm en t, D O N A L D E CKE RT , ind ivi dua lly a nd i n hi s of fi ci al c ap ac ity

a s aP oli ce O ff

ic er w iththe A the ns- Cl ar

ke Co unty

P oli ce D ep ar

tm en t, RYA N MC GE E, indiv iduallyand in his o fficial ca pa ci ty a s aP oli ce O ff

ic er w iththe A the nsCl ark e Co un ty Poli ce Dep art m en t, LLOYD N A SH , ind ivi dua lly

a nd i n hi s of

fi ci al c ap ac ity as aP oli ce O ff

ic er w iththe A the ns- Cl ar

ke Co unty Po lic e D ep ar

tm en t, D ef en dants -Appe llants .Honora ble J erome Fa

rris, U n i t ed S t at es Circuit J udg e for the Ninth Circuit, sitt ing by * desig nation. In revie wingdefe ndants’ motion for summary judgme nt, we re solve all issues of mater ial fac t 1 in favor of

plaintiff: the nonmoving pa rty . See Durruthy

v. Pastor, 351 F.3d 1080, 1084 ( 11th Cir. 20 03 ). So where th ere ar e c on fl ic tin gre po rt s o f f a c ts i n th e ple a din g s, de po sit ion s, ans we rs to int e rr og ator ie s, a ff

ida vit s, and admi ssi on s o n f ile , w e a c c e pt t

he ve rs ion

mos t f avo ra ble to E ri c Wil liam Irby
. 2 ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the Middle District of Ge orgia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ (J ul y 30 , 200 4) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, BI RC H a nd F A RR IS , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. * PE R CU RIA M: Four police officer s of the Athens-Clar ke County , G eorgia, Police D e p a rt men t- - R a ym o n dVo n An d e r s o n , Do n a l dEc k e rt , R yan M c G e e , a n dLl o yd N as h - - ap pe al the de nia l of the ir m oti on f or sum m ar y j udgm en t onc la im s f

or
ex ce ssi ve f

or ce und er

the F ourth A m en dm en t m ad e ag ai nst the m in the ir ind ivi dua l c ap ac iti es . W e re ve rs e an d r em an d f or f urthe r pr oc ee din gs.

Fa ct s 1Of

fi c e rs Cle ve land , B uf

fi ng ton , Ph ill ips , a

nd Ca rr are no t pa

rt ie s to thi s a

pp e a l. 2 3 A t a ppr oxi m at el y

4:0 0 a
. m . on 1 9 June 199 7, O ff ic er Cl ev el an d , of

the 2 Franklin Springs Police Depar tm ent, w as on routin e patrol w hen he noticed a red pic k- up tru ck

w ithabur

ne d- out ta ill igh t. E ri c W ill iam

I rb y w as dr ivi ng the tr

uc k; Roy C. Hutchinson was in the passenger seat. Cleveland began to follow the truck
an d no tic ed

that the tr

uc k w as w eavin g be tw ee n lane s and h av ing tr oubl e negotiatin g curves in the roadway
. At this point , C leveland susp ected the driver
w as und er

the inf lue nc e. H e fo llo w ed

the tr uc k f or thr ee -quart er s of

am ile a nd tr ie d to ge t t o ali ght ed

a re a to s top the tr

uc k. T he tr

uc k sl ow ed

down a s if

to sto p but did not . C le ve land the n turn ed on h is l igh ts and s ir en . C le ve land s ign al ed the tr uc k to pul l ov er

a nd r ad ioe d th e dis pa tc he r to s ay he w as m ak ing atr af

fi c sto p. Irby did no t pull o ver. Instead, Irby led Cleveland on a highs peed chase at spe ed s of up t o 75 m ile s pe r hour
. T he c ha se e ve ntu al ly c ove re d 30 m ile s and
we nt throug h Franklin, Madison, and A thens-Clarke counties. O ffice rs Bu ff i n g t o n (o f R o yst o n Po l i ce De p ar t m en t ), Ph i l l i p s (o f F ra n k l i n Co u n t y Sh er i ff ’s D ep ar tm en t) , a nd C ar

r (o f Ma dis on C ounty

S he ri ff ’ s D ep ar tm en t) j oin ed

in the ch as e. T he of fi ce rs a tte m

pte d to e nd the pur sui t by usi ng r oll ing r oa dbl oc ks and oth er m an eu ve rs , but

I rb y a voi de d a ll of

tho se de vic es . I rb y

c ont inu ed

to w eave4

over the road to prevent the officer s from passing
. At one point, Ir by turned off Highway 29 ont o Highway

174, lost control of his truck, hit a m ailbox, and ran int o adit ch
. T his inc ide nt d id n ot e nd the c ha se . I rb y dr ove on. O ff

ic er P hil lip s j oin ed the c ha se a s th e ve hic le s w er e ap pr oa ch ing him
. P hil lip s go t i n f ro nt o f the tr uc k to a tte m

pt t o sl owit

down. Whe n he sawI rb y tr y to tur n on to anothe r ro ad , Ph ill ips bum

pe d hi m w iththe le ft

f ro nt c or ne r of the pol ic e car to g et

I rb y to spi n
ou t, b ut th atfai le d. Ir by c ont inu ed

to le ad the c ha se unt il O ff

ic er P hil lip s a ga in g ot i n f

ro nt o f the tr uc k. P hil lip s sl ow ed

down ina n e ff

ort t o ge t I rb y

to sto p. I rb y

w ove a cr oss the r oa d ina n a tte m

pt t o ge t aro und the pol ic e car. I rb y tr ie d to pa ss P hil lip s on the r igh t- hand s ide in a dit chbut spun ou t and w en t ba ckw ar ds i n th e oppo sin g l a n e o f tr a f f i c b e f o r e g o i n g b a c ki n t o th e d i t c h o n H i g h w a y 1 0 6
. I r b y’ s tr u c kc a me up ou t of the ditch and ram m ed Phillips’s patrol car. Ram m ing th e patrol car kn oc ke d Irby’ s t ru ckba ckdo wn i nt o t he di tc h. Inthe dit ch , the m oto r ve hic le c ha se f ina lly e nde d, a ro und 5:0 0 a
. m . , in A the ns- Cl ar

ke Co unty . O ff

ic er Cl ev el an d go t ou t of

his c ar a nd r anto the pa ss en ge r si de of t he tru ck . He tri edto op en th e d oo r, bu t i t was lo ck ed
. Cl ev el an d or de re d th e pa sse nge r H utc hin son to e xit the tr uc k, but H utc hin son pr ote ste d and r ef

use d to c om

ply
. C le ve land r ea ch ed

ins ide the tr

uc k, unl oc ke d th eHutchinson was held at Fr anklin County and later rele ased on bond. He late r disappea red, a nd 3 no statement fr om him about the events that occ urre d that eveningis in the recor d. 5 door, and pulled Hutchinso n out. Cleveland struggled with and hand cuffed H utc hin son. 3 N on- de fe ndant O ff

ic er Carr appr oa ch ed

the dr ive r’ s si de of

the tr uc k, gun dr awn . Irby was st il l at te m pt in g t o g ethi s t ru ckou t o f th e d it ch , sp in ni ng th e ti res . T he ba ck ti re s w er e in a

r ut i n th e bot tom

of the dit ch , a nd the tr

uc k la ck ed

tr ac tio n t o co m e u p th e h i l l . Of

fi ce r C arr t o l dIr

b y fi v e o r s i x t i m es t o tu rn o ff th e t ru ck ’s
m oto r. I rb y

f ina lly c om pli ed
. C ar

r the n to ld I rb y

to ge t ou t of

the tr uc k, but I rb y
re fu s ed . Af

t erre p ea t i n g h i s co m

m an d s s ev er al t i m es , C arr o p en ed th e d ri v er ’s sid e door a nd o rd er ed

I rb y to ge t ou t of

the tr uc k and t o le t C ar

r se e Ir by ’ s hands to ensure Irby

had no weapons. I rby

neither fr eely

showed his hands nor obey ed Carr ’s comm an ds to ge t o ut of t he tru ck
. Carr finally rea ched into th e truck to pull Irby out. But Ir

by leaned ba ckward s t owa rd s t he pa ss en ge r si de , m ak in g i t h ardforCarrto gra b h is ha nd s. A ft er se ve ra l tri es , Carr

w as able to gr ab I rb y

a nd t o pu ll him

out of the tr uc k, gr ab bin g I rb y ’ s r igh t w ri st w ithhis le ft hand whil e Carr

ke pt h is g un i n hi s r igh t ha nd clo se to hi s ch es t.Se ve ra l of the of fi c e rs sa id t

hat at th is p oint Ca

rr ’s gun dis c ha rg e d (b ut th e bu ll et di d not hi t 4 any body ). Off icer Phill ips said he thought the gun di schar g ed while I rby was a lrea dy

runningin the field, althoug h he did not see the shot fired. T he def endant of fice rs wer e not y et on the sce ne, and thi s matte r i s n ot a

g e nu ine dis pute of

mate ri a l f

a c t f or purp os e s o f t

his sp e c if ic a pp e a l. 6 Irby started scre am ing as Carr pulled him out of the truck. ( Carr

describes Ir by a s sc re am ing a s if

I rb y w er e tr y ing to pum

p hi m se lf up t o ge t hi s a dr en al ine fl ow ing
. ) I rb y ’ s le ft

hand g ra bbe d th e sli de on C ar

r’ s pi sto l, a nd I rb y

tr ie d to pul l Carr ’ s pi sto l aw ay

f ro m Carr , pus hin g th e of

fi ce r dow n th e dit chw ithsig nif ic an t str en gth
. C ar

r ha s sa id h e fe lt ove rp ow er ed
. B ut C ar r w as f ina lly able to tw ist

his
ow n arm a nd g et the pol ic e w ea

pon aw ay f ro m I rb y . C ar

r, f ee lin g hi s li fe w as in danger, hit Ir

by on the top of the head w ith the bu tt of his gu n one tim e. Car r then 4 tooka defe nsive stance and drew down on Ir by
. Irby did no t free ze. Ir

by looked at Carr , sc re am ed

a ga in ( in the pum

pin g- up m an ne r sim ilar to tha t pr ev iou sly de sc rib edby Carr), an d ra n i nt o t he gra ss y fie ldbe hi nd th e truc k. Whe n I rb y

r anup the hil l, Carr

sawI rb y ha d no w ea

pon in h is h an ds; so Carr holstered his gu n and pul led out hi s baton andchased afte r Ir by
. Carr y elled to Irby to stop and to get on th e ground. Ir by said, “ You’ re not going to catch m e, old m an , ” an d c ont inu ed

r unni ng. I rb y

w oul d no t st op; so C ar

r hit him in the uppe r ba ck sid e of

one of I rb y ’ s th igh s. C ar

r hit I rb y thr ee ti m es , be fo re I rb y

f el l t o the gr ound
. C ar

r dove on t op o f Ir

by to ke ep him

f ro m ge tti ng u p. A t this poi nt,7

O ff ic er P hil lip s sh ow ed

up and h el pe d C ar

r to h an dc uf

f Ir by
. E ve n a ft er

be ing handc uf fe d, I rb y c ont inu ed

to re sis t. I rb y

y el le d th at

the of fi ce rs w er e goi ng t o ha ve to ki ll hi m

to tak e h im
. A s th e of fi ce rs got I rb y to his f ee t t o w al k hi m

out of the f ie ld, I rb y ke pt kicking , sw ingin g, y elling, and fighting , tr y ing to push and drag the office rs. Car r hit Irby on the back of the thigh again to get Irby to go do wn, to no avail. O ffice r Bu ff ing tonc am e ove r to h el p. B uf fi ngt on g av e Ph ill ips ase co nd p ai r of handc uf fs
. O ne of

the c uf fs w as put

on I rb y ’ s w ri st and P hil lip s pu lle d onthe ope n c uf f, tr y ing to le ad

I rb y a w ay f ro m the f ie ld. P hil lip s pu t hi s f

la shl igh t i n th e
em pty part of the se co nd c uf

f to g et m or e co ntr ol, but

I rb y sti ll re sis te d. T he n, Ir by kic ke d O ff

ic er P hil lip s inthe c he st; a nd b othI rb y a nd P hil lip s f

el l t o th e gr ound : I rb y

on t op o f Ph ill ips
. T he n, the of fi ce rs dov e on t op o f Ir

by to hol d hi m to the groun d. I rby

got control o f Phillips’ s flashlight , but the office rs stopped him f ro m a tta ck ing w ithit
. I rb y

c ont inu ed

his r es ist an ce w ithf

urthe r fi ght ing a nd ki ck in g. A t this poi nt, de fe ndant o ff ic er s V on A nde rs on, E ck er t, Mc G ee , a nd N as h arrived on the scene. O ffice r E ckert brought a ny lon strap (hob ble cord) he hadA hobble cord i s a n y l o n s t ra p with a metal snap at one end that c an conne ct to a pair of 5 ha nd c uf fs and a pe rm ane nt l oo p o n th e oth e r e nd , th at c an s e c ur e ank le s, kn e e s, or e lbo ws . The district cour

t uses the word “ hog -tie” to de scribe this mea ns of sec uringI rb y . Fo r the 6 purposes of this appe al, we use t h e wo rd “f et t er” instead of “ hog -tie.” B y the way , even at the summa ry jud g me nt s ta g e , it is no t pla in to us that su ff ic ie nt e vid e nc e e xists in t

he re c or d to e sta

bli sh that Irby ’s hands and feet we re bound f ewe r than 12 inche s apar

t. The district court doe s not call our attention to the evidenc e supportingthat view, nor doe s appellee s ’ brief . But for the sake of discussion, we ac cept the district c ourt’s desc ription of how Irby was bound. 8 with him ; when O ffice r E ckert ar rived on the scene, O ffice r N ash told Eckert that 5 pol ic e of fi ce rs w er e in the f

ie ld, the sus pe ct

( Ir by ) w as sti ll fi ght ing , a nd the officer s wer e re questin g leg restraints. O ffice r E ckert re trieved the hobb le cord
an d b ro ug ht th e st rap ov er t o Irby’ s l oc at io n a nd att em pt edto ap pl y

th e res tra in t. Irb y vi ol en tl y res is te d b y

ki ck in g. He b ru is edOffic er Eck ertin th e p ro ces s. O ff ic er Bu ff ing tonthe n gave I rb y

ave rb al w ar

nin g to sto p ki ck ing or

I rb y
wou ldbe sp rayed wit h p ep pe r sp ray (“ OC sp ray”). Irby di d n ot st op ki ck in g. A ft er a tte m pti ng t o ge t c ontro l ov er

I rb y ’ s le gs and f

ai lin g be ca

use of I rb y ’ s ki ck s, E ck er t t old Bu ff ing tonto go ahe ad

a nd p ep pe r spr ay

I rb y . B uf

fi ngt on a ppl ie d th e O C s pr ay to Ir by a nd h el pe d C ar

r ove rp ow er

I rb y . I rb y

m oane d and at this poi nt be cam e co m

pli an t. W ith out

de lay , the of

fi ce rs he lpe d E ck er

t f ette r Ir by : h is
an kle s w er e tie d to ge the r, his hands w er e cu ff ed tog ethe r be hin d hi s ba ck , a nd h is hands an d f

ee t w er e str ap pe d to ge the r so tha t the dis tanc e be tw ee n I rb y ’ s w ri sts and ankles was fe we r than 12 inches, causing his b ody to be bowed. T he officer s

6Gar

rett broug ht suit in he r individual c apac ity , as next frie nd and administratrix of the estate of 7 Irb y , and as next f

ri e nd and le g a l gua rd ian o f V a le ri e Irb y , Irb y ’s da ughte r. F or

purp os e s o f t

his appea l, we re fer

to Garr ett as a sing le plaintiff. 9 carr ie d I rb y

to a pla ce be hin d O ff

ic er Cl ev el an d’ s c ar . T he c ar w as r unni ng, a nd Ir by w as on h is c he st n ear its e xhaust pip e. V on A nde rs on t

ur ne d I rb y ’ s he ad

to the sid e an d m ad e sur e that I rb y ha d apul se ( w hic h he did ). I rb y did not c om pla in about th e O C spray , and no one decontam inated him with w ater. An am bu la nc e was imm ed ia te ly call edan d a rri ve d m in ut es lat er. Param edics found Irby

fetter ed and ly ing in a prone positio n. T he param edics de te ct ed no p uls e. I rb y

w as take n to A the ns R eg ion al Me dic al Ce nte r w he re he
w as de cl ar ed

de ad
. D r. K opon en , the D ep uty Ch ie f Me dic al E xa m ine r at the G eo rg iaBure auof

I nve sti ga tio ns, pe rf

orm ed a n auto psy

a nd l ist ed

the c au se of death as “posit ional asphy xia.” The autopsysaid the injury to Irby ’ s head wa s

“ v ery s up er fi ci al .” Th e r ep o rt fo u n dm et h amp h et amin e a n damph et amin e i n Ir b y’ s sy ste m a nd l ist ed

the m a s c ontri but ing f

ac tor s of de ath. N ei the r O C s pr ay nor carb on m on ox id e were l is te d a s co nt rib ut in g fa ct or s o f de at h. Pam el a G ar

re tt -- I rb y ’ s m oth er

- - br ough t su it ag ai nst

de fe ndants f

or
wr ongful d eath and deprivation o f civil rights. T he district court granted 7 de fe ndants ’ m oti ons fo r sum m ar y j udgm en t ona ll cl ai m s, e xc ep t pl ai nti ff ’ s § 1 983The Unifie d Gover nment of Athens- Clarke County , Ge o rgi a i s also a de fenda nt. The district 8 court grante d summary judgme nt on all claims ag ainst the Unified Gove rnment, except the § 1983 c la im f or fa ilure to t

ra in i ts o ff

ic e rs a de qu ate ly . T he Un if ie d G ov ernme nt i s n ot a

pa rt y to t his a pp e a l. 10 ind ivi dua l c ap ac ity

c la im s f or use of e xc es siv e fo rc e. D ef

en dants appe al the 8 de nia l of sum m ar y j udgm en t.

D isc uss ion
Qualified im

m unitycan protect off

icers “ acting within the scope of [their] dis cr et ion ar

y auth or ity w he n th e al le ge dly

w ro ngf ul a ct s oc curr ed
. ” L ee v. Fe rr ar o, 284 F
. 3d 1 188, 119 4 ( 11th C ir
. 200 2)
. T o de te rm ine w he the r anof fi ce r is entitled to q ualified im

m unity , w e engage in a tw o-step analy sis. Sa ucier v. Katz, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 2156 (2001). First, we decide w hether defendants’ acts violated the Constitu tion. Id. Sec ond, we ask whether, at the tim e of the incident, e very obj ec tiv el y

r ea sona ble pol ic e of

fi ce r w oul d have r ea liz ed the a ct s vi olate d a lr ea dy cl earl y e sta bli she d f ed er al law . I d. T ha t the of

fi ce rs in thi s c as e w er e ac tin g w ith in the sc ope of the ir discretionary

authority is undi sputed. Thus, w e turn to whether def endants, given th e ci rcu m st an ces , vi ol at eda co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht of I rb y ’s.The Supreme Court ha s held that the Four th Amendment was incorporated ag ainst the states by 9 the Four teenth Amendme nt. See Ing raha m v. Wright, 97 S.Ct. 1401, 1414 n.42 (1977). Plaintiff adamantly

reje cts the notion that Irby ’s death is critical to her c laim of excessive for ce: 10 pla int if f a rgue s th at th e c la im wo uld be the same e ve n if Irb y ha d n ot d ie d. B ut p la int if f d oe s n ote that Irby ’s death and its c ause are rele vant to the question of damag es, should plaintiff preva il on her c la im. 11 Pl ai nti ff a rg ue s th at

de fe ndants vio la te d I rb y ’ s c onst itu tio na l r igh t un de r the Fourth Am endm ent to be free from the use of excessive force in the course of an 9
ar re st. P la int if

f ap pe ar s to a rg ue that de fe ndants ’ f ette ri ng o f Ir

by w as e xc es siv e for tw o reasons: (1) the restra int has a high potential of resulting in death when ap pli ed to a pe rs on i n I rb y ’ s c ondi tio n a t the ti m e of the inc ide nt; a nd ( 2) the restraint w as unnecessary in the ligh t of Irby ’ s com pliance after

having b een
s p r a ye dwi t h OC s p r a y. 10

“ Fo urth A m en dm en t j ur isp ru de nc e ha s lo ng r ec ogni ze d th at the r igh t t o
m ak e ana rr es t or

inv es tig at or

y sto p ne ce ssari ly

c ar ri es w ithit

the r igh t t o us e
som e de gr ee of

phy sic al c oe rc ionor

thr eat the re of

to ef fe ct it
. ” G raha m

v. Connor, 109 S.Ct. 1865 , 1871-72 (1989 ). So, we analy ze whether defendants used
ex ce ssi ve f

or ce by de te rm ini ng whe the r “ the of fi ce rs ’ a ct ion s are ‘ obj ec tiv el yDef endants a rgue we s h o u ld analy

ze the excessive forc e cla ims under the rubr ic of the 11 F ourt e e nth Am e ndme nt, no t the F ourt h A me ndme nt. We d isa g re e . T he e xce ssi ve fo rc e c la ims ari se from eve nts happening in the course of the arre st. “[A] ll claims that law enfor ceme nt office rs have used excessive for ce - - dea dly or not -- in the course of

an ar rest . . . should be a

naly zed under the F ourt h A me ndme nt a

nd it s ‘ re a so na

ble ne ss’ sta

nd ard .” Gr aham, 1 09 S.Ct . at 18 71 (e mph a sis omitted). Although the li n e i s not alway s clea r as to whe n an ar

rest ends a

nd pretria l detainment beg ins, the fac ts here f

all on the ar

rest end. See Gutierre z v. C ity of San Antonio, 139 F.3d 441, 452 (5 th C ir . 1 99 8) (s tatin gF ourt e e nth Am e ndme nt a

na ly sis do e s n ot b e g in u

nti l “ afte r the incidents of arr est are completed, afte r the pl aintiff has been relea sed from the arresting office r’s custody , and afte r the plaintiff has been in de tention a waiting trial for a

signific ant per iod of time”) ( quotation and citation omitted). 12 reasonable’ in ligh t of the fac ts and circum stances confronting th em .” Id. at 11 1872
. W e j udge the of

fi ce rs ’ a ct s from t h e perspective of a rea sonable officer on the scene, rather than w iththe 20/ 20 vis ion of hin dsi ght
. T he ca lc ulu s of r ea sona ble ne ss m ust em body a llo w an ce f

or th e fa ct

that po lic e of

fi ce rs a re of

te n f or ce d to m ake split-second judgmen t s -- in circum stances that are te nse, unc er ta in, a nd r ap idl y ev olving
-- about the a m ount

of f or ce that i s ne ce ssary in a part ic ular sit

ua tio n. Id . at 1 87 2 (c it at io ns om it te d)
. Ina na ly zi ng whe the r Ir

by ’ s c onst itu tio na l r igh t w as vio la te d, w e loo k a t the totalityof the circ um stances, “ includi ng the severity of the crim e at issue, whether the sus pe ct

pos es a n im

m ed ia te thr eat t o th e sa fe ty of the of fi ce rs or oth er s, a nd whether he is actively

resisting arrest or attem

pting to evade arr est by

flight.” Lee, 2 84 F.3d at 1 19 7- 98 (qu ot at io n a nd cit at io n o m it te d)
. Pl ai nti ff f ir st arg ue s th at

f ette ri ng I rb y

w as e xc es siv e fo rc e be ca use the fe tte ri ng p ose d ahig h po te nti al of de ath, but

pla int if f doe s no t po int

us t oFor plaintiff’s medical experts to testify that fetter ing a

person pose s some risk of death is not 12 enoug h. Almost e very use of f orce , howeve r minute, poses some risk of de ath. See Ve ra Cruz v. City of Escondido, 139 F .3d 659, 661 (9th Cir. 1998). B ut that does not ma k e all use of f orce unrea sonable. F urthermor e, plaintiff’ s argument it s el f relies on the proposition that the fetter ing car ried with it a high risk of death. F ur the rm or e , p la int if

f d oe s n ot d isp ute de fe nd ants ’ a rgume nt th at th e a dd iti on a l mate ri a ls 13 (mostly police publications and police policies from o t h er j u ri sdictions) are inadmissible under Fe dera l Rule of Evidence 703. Instead, plainti ff states that they are offe ringthe mater ials only for notice. Be cause the materia ls a re not of fer ed for the truth of their conte nt, they cannot e stablish that fetter ing pose s a risk of de ath. 13 com petent evidentiary

suppo rt for that argum ent. A nd in o ur reviewof the expert
m edical testim ony

in this case, w e have found no statem ent quantify ing -- or even atte m pti ng t o qu an tif

y - - the r isk

of de ath po se d by

f ette ri ng. N o c om

pe te nt 12
ev ide nc e in this c as e supp orts the vie wthat de ath or se ri ous inj ur

y is a lik el y
co nse que nc e of

f ette ri ng a pe rs on a s I rb y

w as f ette re d. Plaintiff does offer

expert police testim ony

and additio nal m aterials in an ef fo rt to showthat a

r ea sona ble of fi ce r w oul d have kno w n th at f ette ri ng h as a high risk of death for ce rtain persons. But that evidence presum es that f ette ri ng i s a dangerous practice: that evidence does not -- and cannot -- establish th at fe tte ri ng in fact

pos es ahig h po te nti al f

or de ath or se ri ous bodi ly

inj ur y . U nli ke 13 the risk of death from

firearm s, the r isk associated with fettering is not of such
com m on kn owledge that we could no tice -- without expert m edical testim ony -- that f ette ri ng d oe s in de ed

pos e a hig h r isk

of de ath.14

W ith out e xpe rt m ed ic al te sti m ony

quanti fy ing to som e de gr ee the r isk of de ath or se ri ous bodi ly

inj ur y , pla int if f cannot e sta bli sh tha t f

ette ri ng unde r the circum stances in this case posed a hig h risk of death. T herefor e, we conclude that plaintiff’ s first argum ent on excessive force f ails for lack of suff

icient evidence. Pl ai nti ff ne xt arg ue s th at

the f ette ri ng ( w he the r hig hly

dange ro us o r not )
was un ne ces sa ry

be cau se of I rb y ’s com

pl ia nc e aft er h av in g b een sp rayed wit h OC
s p ra y. Pl ai n t i ff

ad d s th at th e f

o rc e w as p ar t i cu l ar l y ex ce s s i v e a ft erIr b y’ s
co m pl ia nc e in th e li gh t o f hi s ex te nd edst ru gg le , hea d wo un d, an d e xp os ur e to OC spr ay w ith out de co ntam inatio n. R ev ie w ing the e vid en ce be fo re us, w e se e no constitu tional vi olation
. As w e have noted, defe ndants d o not u se excessive force if the y a ct in an“ obj ec tiv el y

r ea sona ble ” m an ne r in the li ght

of the f ac ts and circum stances before them
. Gr aham , 109 S. Ct. at 1872. In context, the for ce
use d by de fe ndants w as w ith in the r an ge of r ea sona bly pr opor tio na te r es pons es to th e n eedforfor ce an d was no t ex ces si ve . T he dis tr ic t c ourt sa id tha t de fe ndants use d un co nst itu tio na lly e xc es siv e fo rc e ag ai nst

I rb y be ca use the y f ette re d hi m

a ft er he w as m ad e co m

pli an t by the O C s pr ay . W e dis ag re e. I n ana ly zi ng whe the r ex ce ssi ve f or ce w as use d, c ourts
m ust loo k a t the tot al ity

of the c ir cu m stanc es : n ot j ust asm al l sl ic e of

the a ct s t h a th ap p e n e da tth e t a i l o f th e s t o ry.15

Ir by r ep eate dly

pla ce d of

fi ce rs ’ li ve s and i nnoc en ts’ li ve s indange r by engaging the police in a m ulti-count y

vehicle chase that did not end u ntil Irby had
cr as he d twice
. O nc e Ir

by ’ s tr uc k w as f ina lly sto ppe d, the of

fi ce rs tr ie d to r es tr ai n him in a le ss r es tr ic tiv e m an ne r (s im ple handc uf

fi ng) , but I rb y r ana nd f ough t with the police and kept on v iolentlykicking and resisting. T he uncontrov erted
ev ide nc e in the r ec or d sh ow s th at le gs c ansti ll be use d to kic k, e ve n w he n th e
an kle s are bound t oge the r. T he re fo re , it c anbe ne ce ssary

to re str ai n f

urthe r or
se cu re t he leg s t o a vo ida po wer k ic k fr om th e g ro un d. Irby kicked viol ently

until sp ray ed with the O C spray
. As soon as he wa s spr ay ed a nd b ec am e co m

pli an t, the of

fi ce rs im m ed ia te ly f ette re d hi m . T he y

too k advanta ge of

aw ind owof

opp ortun ity

- - of unknow n duratio n - - to r es tr ai n I rb y in s uc h aw ay

that he c oul d no t harm

a nothe r of

fi ce r or him se lf sho uld he de ci de to st op be in g c om

pl ia nt , a real is ti c p os si bi li ty giv en hi s re cen t wo rd s an d d eed s. A ga in, w e m

ust loo k a t the sit

ua tio n no t w ithhin dsi ght , but w iththe e y e of the objectively

rea sonable officer on the scene. From the scene, we have a m an
w ho f or ac onsi de ra

ble ti m e ha s c onsi ste ntl y

put his li fe a nd the li ve s of

oth er s in dange r an d w ho h as sho w n th at he ha s e ve ry

int en tio n of

f igh tin g and f

or ci bly
es ca pin g arr es t i f poss ibl e. W e cannot say the de fe ndants ’ a ct s w er e be y ond the outsi de borders of obje ctive rea sonablen ess given all the circum stances. S ee16

Co ttr el l v. Ca ldw el l, 85 F
. 3d 1 480, 148 8, 149 2 ( 11th C ir
. 199 6) ( co nc lud ing officer s did no t use excessive force, althoug h arre stee died of positio nal asphy xia,
w he re of fi ce rs pla ce d arr es te e in h an dc uf fs a nd l eg r es tr ai nts a ft er

a20- m inu te str uggl e an d pu t hi m

in a pr one pos iti on i n th e ba ck of apol ic e car) ; F er

nande z v. Ci ty of Co ope r Ci ty , 207 F
. Su

pp. 2d 1 371, 137 9- 80 ( S. D
. F la
. 200 2) ( say ing
ar re ste e’ s de ath by

pos iti ona l a sphyxia

w as not the r es ult of unc onst itu tio na lly
ex ce ssi ve f

or ce by of fi ce rs , but w as r athe r the r es ult

of a rr es te e’ s “ ill eg al , phy sical, and prolo nged resistance”). Af ter considering all of plaintiff’ s argum ents, w e conclude that, as a m atter of law , de fe ndants did

not vio la te I rb y ’ s F ourth A m en dm en t r igh t t o be f re e fr om excessive force
. Even so, out of an abund ance of c aution, we also conclude that qua lif ie d im m uni ty w oul d a ppl y e ve n if the de fe ndants ha d vi olate d I rb y ’ s r igh ts:
no c ontro lli ng c as e lawha d se ttl ed the appl ic ab le law ; and g ive n th e circum stances, def

endants’ a cts we re not so far bey ond th e hazy border betwe en
ex ce ssi ve a nd a cc ep ta

ble f or ce that e ve ry

obj ec tiv el y

r ea sona ble of fi ce r, f ac ing the c ir cum stanc es , w oul d have kno w n th at the a ct s vi olate d th e pr e- ex ist ing fed eral law. REVERSED AND REMANDED.