## 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. 07

- 3903 J ONAT HAN A. C ATL IN, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. C ITY OF W H E A T ON, a m uni ci palc o r po r at i o n o fthe St ate o fI l l i noi s, B IL L C OO LEY, A NDR EW U HLIR, E DWARD F ANN I NG, M AT T HE W H ALE & M AR K F IE LD , empl o y ee s an d a g en ts o fthe Ci tyo fW he at o n, D efend a nts-A pp ellees, an d

C OUN TYOF D U P AGE, a po l i ti ca l s ubdi vi si o n o fthe St ate o fI l l i noi s, J OHN Z ARUBA, Sher i ffo fDuP age County, I l l i noi s, D U P AGE C O UN TY M AJO R C RIME S T AS K F OR CE , D efend a nts.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 04 C2590

—H arry D . L einenw eber, Judge
.
A RG UE D M AY 11, 2009

— D ECI DE D J UL Y 21, 20092 N o. 07

- 3903 Befo re C UDAH Y, P OSNER, a nd K ANN E , C ircu it Judges. C UDAH Y, C ircu it Judge. J onathan Catl i n w as ar re sted and bri efl y deta i ned w hen m em ber s o fthe W heato n Pol i ce Depa r tmentm i st o o khi m f o r the ri ng l ea derofa l o ca l dr ug o per at i o n. Ca tl i n s ubs eque nt l y s ue d f o r f al se ar r es t an d ex cess ive f orce. Th e d istri ct cou rt grante d sum m ary j ud gm en t f orthe defe nd ants on the bas i s o fqual i fi ed i mmu n i t y . We a ffi r m.

I . B AC KGR OUND On Au gust 20, 2003 , the DuPage County S heri ff’ s Narcot

i cs U ni t co nduc te d a maj o r o per at i o n t o a r r es t numer o us m em ber s o fa drug co nspir acy i n W heato n, I l l i noi s. The oper ati on i n vol ved ov erse venty
- fi ve offi cer s fro m n eig hb or in g jur isd ict ion s, in c lu d in g th e d efe n d an ts in thi s ca se, wh o ar e m em ber s o fthe W heato n Pol i ce Depar tment
. The DuPa g e Nar co ti cs U ni t a ss i g ne d the de f en d an ts th e task of exec ut ing an arrest w arran t for R obert Ptak, the ki ngpin ofthe drug co nspir acy. T h e d efendants w er e t ol d that Pt ak’ s a rr es t w ar ra nt was f orCl ass X f e l oni es

— th e h igh es t c las s o f felon y u n d er Il lin ois l aw

— that Ptak w as ar m ed and dange ro us, that h e h ad r es i st ed ar r es t o n s ev er alpr i o r o cc as i o ns a nd tha t he had thre ate ned vi ol ent re sist ance i fthe pol i ce a tte m pted t o r e - a r r e s th i m. A t abou t 12:30 i n th e afternoon , the d efend an ts w ere dispat ched to the Red Roo fI nn i n Dow ners Grov e, I l l i noi s, w here Ptakwas bel i eve d to be s tay i n g. T h ey w er e g i ven a p h ot og ra p han d p h ys ica l d es c rip tio n of P ta k , a n d to ldN o. 07

- 3903 3

“Crotch roc ket” i s app arent ly a s lang t erm f or a s port- m otor- 1 c yc l e . Th e f oo t pe gs a nd s hi ft e r s on thi s t yp e of m ot orcycl e are pl a c e d f a r the r ba c k tha n us ua l , c a us i ng the r i de r t o le an fo rw a rd an d as su m e a n ae ro d y n a m ic p o sit io n . S ee h tt p :// en .w ik ip ed ia .o rg /w ik i/S p o rtb ik e (v isi te d 6/1 1 /0 9 ). O u r d u ty to v iew the ev id e n c e in the ligh t m ost fav or ab le to 2 Catli n is com plic ated s om ew hat by the f actthatCatli n’ s st atem en tofm at er i al f ac t s c ont ai ns adm issions thatc as tdoubton his al le gati on that the defe nd ants did not iden ti fy them se lves (co n tin u ed ...) that he had r ecent l y b een s een ri ding a y el l ow, “cr otc h ro cket ” s tyl e m oto rcy cl e. U pon ar ri vi ng atthe sce ne, 1 th e d efend an t s observe d a person m atch ing Pta k’s physi caldescr i pti on wh o w as oper at in g a ye l l ow sport
m ot or cycl e in the parking l ot adj acent to the Red Roo f I nn. A s i t happ en ed , how eve r, thi s per son w as not Ptak. R ath er, i t w as th e plaintiff, J on a t ha n C atlin. Furth er, Ca t l i n wa s no ta c t ua l l y l e a v i ngthe R e d R o o fI nn . I ns t e a d, he was l ea ving hi s wor k pl ac e, whi ch was l o ca te d abo ut 10 0 y ar ds f r o m the Re d Ro o fI nn. Nev er th el es s, thi nk i ng that they had l oca ted Ptak, the defe nd ants d rove past Cat l i n i n the i r unmar k ed S

. U. V. , Ca tl i n pul l ed o utb eh i nd them and t h e parti es drove a shor t way unti l theybo th cam e t o a s top a t a tr affi c l i ght. For the p urp oses of this app eal, w e cred it Ca tli n’s ve r si o n o fwhatha ppen ed ne xt
. Acco r di ngt o Ca tl i n, w hi l e the par ti es w er e s topped i n tr affi c, defendants U hl i r and Fanni ng j um p ed o u t ofthe S. U
. V. and ra n to w ar d C at lin . U h lir a n d F an n in g w er e d re ss ed in p lain cl othe s a nd di d not i denti fy them sel ves as pol i ce o ffi cer s. 24 N o. 07

- 3903

(

. . . c on t i nu e d) 2 as p olic e officers. First, C atlin a d m its that the d efend an ts w ere w eari ng thei r b a d g es around the ir necks w hen they ap p ro ach ed him

. Seco nd , an d m or e sign ifi can tly, he ad m its th a t Of fi c e r H a l e h e a r d h i s fe l l o w d e f e n d a n t s i d e n t i fy th e mse lv es as p o lic e o ffice rs . (N o . 1:0 4 -cv -0 2 5 9 0 , D o c. N o . 43 , at 2, 5 (a d m itt in g U h lir ¶ ¶ 43 -4 4 an d H a le ¶ 69 ).) W hile th ese ad m issions m ay w ell un d erm ine C at l i n ’s cla im thatthe de f e nd a nt s di d n oti de nt i fy the m s e l ve s a s po li ce of fic ers prior to ar rest ing him , the def endan ts have not argued thi s , and th e r e f or e a ny s uc h a r gu m e ntthe y m i gh th a ve m a de is w aiv ed

. A t a n y r ate, as w e d iscuss b elow , the d efend an ts ar e en t i t l ed t o qual i fi ed i m m uni t y e veni fthe y di d not i dent i fy the m s el ves as pol i c e offi c er s be f or e re s t ra i ni ng Ca t l i n. ( A thi r d de f en dan t, Hal e, was unabl e to e xi t f r o m the carwith the othertw o as planned because the chi l d safety l o ck s wer e ac ti va te d o n th e ba ckdo o r . ) Uhl i r a nd F an ni ng appr oache d Ca tl i n fr o m e i th ers i de, g r ab be d hi m a nd th re w h im on to th e gra ss b y th e sid e of th e roa d . W h ile th e d efe n d an ts w er e a t t em p tin g t o re st ra in h im , C at lin admi ts tha t he b egan to s tr ug g l e “r ea l l y, r ea l l y ha r d” an d m anage d to bre ak f re e. S ubsequentl y, Fa nning tac kl ed hi m and U hl i r hel d him i n pla ce b y pl aci ng hi s knee o n Catl i n’s l ower ba ck. The defendants to l d C atl i n to “s top str ug g l i ng, ” b utthe y s t i l l di d n o ti de nt i fy the mse l v es as pol i ce o ffi cer s. B y then, H al e had m anage d to unlo ck the b ack doorof t h e S.U

. V. and j oi n the othe r offi cer s. H ale h an d c u ffed C at linw h ile U h lir an d Fa n n in g h eld hi m do wn. A lm os t im m e d i at ely , th e d efe n d an ts rea lize d th eir m i sta ke. W hi l e he w as b ein g r est ra i ned, Catl i n prot est edN o. 07

- 3903 5

T he c our tal s o gr ant ed s um m ar y j udgm en tonCat l i n’ s s t ate 3 law claim s and on his M o n ell cl ai m agai ns tthe C i t y ofW he at on. C a t l i n d o e s n o tc h a l l e n g e th i s p o r t i o n o f t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’s jud g m en t on ap p eal. that the defendants “hav e the wrong guy. ” Afte r succes sfull y restraining him , th e d efend an ts ch ecke d C a tli n’s i denti fi cati on, co nfi rm ed thei r m i sta ke and rel eas ed h im . C at lines tim at es th at h e w a s d et ain ed for a p p ro x im ate l y 2 0 m i nutes. A l though there was so m e dam age to hi s m oto rcy cl e, he was ab l e t o dri ve hi m sel fhom e. Cat l i n c o m m en ce d thi s S ec ti o n 1 983 a ct i o n, a l l eg i ng th atthe d efen dan ts v i o l at ed hi s F o ur thAm en dm en t ri ghts by unlaw full y s ei zi ng hi m and usi ng exce ssi ve force in th e cou rse of restraining him

. T he d is t r ic t cou rt g r an te d s um m ary j udg m en t f o r the de f en dan ts , fi ndi ng that the defen d an ts w er e e nti tl ed to qual i fi ed i m m unity w ith res p e c t t o b ot h C at lin ’s fa lse arr es t c laim an d h is excess i ve f or ce c l ai m s. 3

I I . DI S C US S I ON We r e v i e w d en o vo the d ecision gran ting su m m ary j ud gm ent forthe defe nd ants on th e b as is o fqual i fi ed im m u n ity
. Phel an v. Vi l l

. of Ly ons , 531 F.3d 484, 487 (7th Cir. 2008 )

. Qual i fi ed i m m unity pr ote cts pu bl i c o ffi ci al s fro m l i abi l i ty f ordam age s i fthei r acti ons did notvi ol ate cl ear l y e stabl i shed ri ghts of w hi ch a re aso nabl e per son w ou ld h av e k n o w n . H arlow v. Fi tzgerald, 45 7 U.S

. 80 0, 81 8 (19 82 ); Viilo v. E yre, 5 47F
. 3d 70 7, 7 09 (7th Ci r . 2 00 8)

. The6 N o. 07

- 3903 pu rpos e o f the doctr i ne i s “to shi el d offi ci al s fro m har ass m en t, d ist ra c tio n, an d liab ility w h en th ey p er for m t h eir du ti es re aso nabl y. ” Pears on v. Cal l ahan , ___ U.S

. ___, 12 9 S. C t. 808, 815 (2009). To o ver com e qual i fi ed i m m unity, a p lain ti ffm ust sh o w tha t ( 1) the f ac ts make o uta v i o l at i o n o fthe pl ainti ff’ s federa l r i ghts, and ( 2) the ri ght a t i ssue w as clearly estab li sh ed at th e tim e of t h e de fend an t’s alle ge d m isc on d u c t. Saucierv . Ka tz , 533 U
. S. 194, 201 (2001 ); s e e al s o Chakl os v. St e ve ns , 5 60 F.3d 705, 71 1 (7th C ir. 2009). W e ma y a ddr e s s the s e i s s ue s i n the o r de r we deem m os t e x p ed ien t. See Pea rson , 129 S. C t. at 818. Th us , w he re i t i s a pp ar ent that the al l ege d ri ght a t i ssue i s no t cl ear l y e stabl i shed, we m ay deci de the case o n thes e grou nd s w ithou t fi rst d ecid ing if t h ere w as an un d erlyin g c on st itu tio n al v iola tio n . Id. Catl i n ar gues that the de fendants ar e no t e nti tl ed to quali fi ed i m m unity b ecause theydi d not t ake r easo nabl e s te ps t o ve r i fy hi s i den ti typri o r to the a r r es t, a nd be cause th er e ar e tr i ab l e i ss ue s o ff ac t as t o whethe r the f or ce they use d i n eff ecti ng the ar re st w as re aso nabl e. We a r e u n p e r s u a d e d b y e i th e r o ft he se a r g u me n t s . Ho wev er, the s ec o nd a r g um en t pr es en ts a c l o se r que st i o n.

A . Fal se Arr est W he n po l i ce o ffi ce r s m i st ak e a per so n f o r som eon e th eys ee k t o a r r es t, the a r r es t i s co ns ti tu ti o na l i fthe officers ( 1) have pro babl e ca use t o ar re st the per son sought, and ( 2) re aso nabl y bel i eve that the per son ar re ste dN o. 07

- 3903 7

P t a k wa s a 3 0 y e a r o l d wh i t e m a l e wi th c l o s e l y c r o p p e d b r o wn 4 h a ir, stan d ing 6’1” an d w eig hin g 208 p ou nd s. C atlin w as a 27 year ol d w h ite m a le w ith cl osel y cropp ed b row n hair, s t andi ng 6 ’ an d wei ghin g a b out19 0 po unds

. Fur the r, our revie w ofthe p h o to graph s contai ned in the rec ord p ers uad es us thatthe f ac i al r es em bl anc e was s t ro ng. is t h e p e r s o n so u gh t. H il l v. Ca li forni a , 40 1 U.S

. 79 7, 80 2 (19 71 ); U nite d State s v. M arshall, 79 F. 3d 68, 69 (7th C ir. 1996 ). I n th e pre sen t case, the arr e s t w a rrant gave th e officers a basi s f or ar re sti ng Rober t Pta k. The o nl y i ssue, ther ef or e, is w h et h er th e y w er e re as on ab le in th in kin g t h at C at lin w as P ta k. W e t h in k t h at th ey w er e. C at linp h ys ica lly re sem bl ed Ptak, was obs er ved in the preci se ar ea 4 w here the defe n dants expecte d to fi nd Ptakand w as dri vi ng the sa m e di sti ncti ve sor t o fm oto rcy cl e a s Pta k. Catl i n’s argum ent that the defendants sho uld have c h ec ke d h is lice n se p lat es p rior to arr es tin g h im is u n av aili ng fortwo r eas ons. The defendants be l i eve d that they w e r e c onfron ting a d an gerou s fel on on a racing m otorcy cl e i n a n a r ea a dj ac en t to a s ta te hi g hw ay. The de f en d a nt s w ere un d er no con stitut ional obli gation to d ither, esp eciall y since ad d iti ona l effort s to verify C atlin’s id en tit y c ou ld h av e give n h im an op p or tu n ity to flee

. E .g., M arshall, 7 9 F.3 d a t 69 (“ R eq u irin g a h igh er le ve l of ve rificatio n orco rr obo ra ti on a t thi s poi nt r i ske d al l owing a gol den m om ent t o pass

— [ the s uspect] co uld have fl ed w hile m ore eviden ce w as gath ered

. ”). F ur th e r, th e d e f e n d a n t s a r e r e q u i r e d t o s h o w o n l y t he reaso na bleness o fthei r belie fthatthe perso n theyar re ste d8 N o. 07

- 3903

w as the per son they w er e s eekin g; th ey ar e no t r equi re d t o s h o w th a tth e y kn e w w it h ce rt aintythatthe perso n th eya r r es te d was the pe r so n the y wer e se ek i ng . Ofte n, ther e wi l l ha v e b e e n mor e tha t a n o ffi c e r c o ul d hav e done to co nfi rm a suspect’ s i dent ity . Thi s wil l not rend er an arrest u nc ons titution al so long as th e officer’s acti ons w er e r eas onabl e under the c i rcum sta nces.

B. Ex cessi ve For ce Catl i n al so ar gues that the defendants used e xcessi ve f or ce whe n t hey a rr est ed hi m . Because the a rr estwas va lid , t h e d efe n d an ts w er e a llow ed to u se so m e fo rc e in th e c ou rs e o f effe c tin g t h e a rre st
. See Grah am v. Conno r, 49 0 U .S. 38 6, 39 6 (1 98 9) (“ [T ]h e r i g h t t o m ak e a n arr es t . .
. car ri es w i th i t the r i ght t o use s om e degr ee ofphysi cal co e r c i o n o r th r e a tth e r e o ft o e ff e c ti t
. ” )

. O u r a s s e s sment o fwhethe r the de f en dan ts ’ use of fo r ce i n the pr es en t ca se c o m po r ts wi ththe F o urt h Am en dm en t’ s “r ea so nablen ess” req uirem en t requ ires us to balanc e “t h e natu re and qual i ty of the i ntrusi on on the i nd i vi du al ’ s Fou rth A m end m en t inter est s a gai nst the co unterv ai l i ng g over nm entali nter est s a t s tak e. ” Id. ; Abdu l l ahi v. City of M adi s on , 4 2 3 F
. 3 d 7 6 3 , 7 6 8 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 5 )

. P a r t i c ula r f acto rs we consi der incl ud e “ the s eve ri ty ofthe cri m e a t i ssue, wh etherthe suspect poses an i m m ed iate thr eatto th e s a f e t y of t h e o ffice rs or ot h er s, an d w h et h er h e is acti vel y r esi sti ng ar re st or a tt em pti ng to ev ade ar re st by fl i ght. ” Grah am , 490 U .S. at 3 96 ; Abdu l l ahi, 42 3 F
. 3d at 768. In the pre sent case , Catl i n al l ege s that the defendants confro nted hi m withou t i denti fyi ng the m sel ves as pol i ceN o. 07

- 3903 9

The d istrict court dis regarded Catli n’ s all egati on that at 5 least on e d efend an t d rew his gu n in th e cou rse of the a rrest, find ing tha t this alleg atio n w as co ntr ad icted b y C atlin’s de p osition testim on y . C atlin ha s n ot ch allen g ed th is find ing on ap p eal. o ffi c e r s , f o r c e d h i m o ffh i s mo t o r c y c l e a n d “ t o s s e d h i m” to th e s id e o f th e ro ad

. H e a lleg es th at su b se q u en tly

— 5 an d stil l w ith ou t iden tifying th em selves as offi cers

— th e defen dan ts t ac k l ed hi m , he l d hi m f ac e do wn bypl ac i ng a knee i n hi s l ower back and t ol d hi m to “quit resi sti ng” a s th e y h a n d c u ff e d h i m. M osto fthe defe nd an ts ’ act i ons on thi s nar ra ti ve str i ke us as reason able: th e d efend an ts t h o u gh t the y w ere confro nti ng an ar m ed an d d anger ous fel on wh o had announced his i ntenti on t o fl ee o r fi ght r atherthan be ar re ste d. They w er e under no co nsti tuti onalo bl i gat i on to car ryo ut the ar re st i n a way tha t w oul d have g i ven Ptak an op p ortuni ty to m ake go od on hi s e ar l i erthr eat s. I n w ha t fol low s, w e ana lyze w ha t seem to us C atlin’s tw o str onge st ar gum ents that the defendants’ u se of f or ce wa s ex cess i ve: fi rs t, he a rgues that the r eas onabl en es s o f th e fo rc e t h e d efe n d an ts u s e d t o s u b d u e h im is i nherent l y a j ury questi on; and sec ond, he s ugges ts that it w as u nrea son able for th e d efend an ts to fai l to iden tify them sel ves as pol i ce o ffi cer s p ri orto com ple ti ng the ar re st.

1. T h e am ou n t of for ce th e d efen d an ts us ed t o restr ain Catlin A gai n, t h e rea sonab l eness o fa parti cul aruse off or ce d ep en d s on th e circ u m st an c es of th e c as e. Grah am , 49 010 N o. 07

- 3903 U
. S. at39 6. Catl i n’s p rinci pal ar gum ent i s that when offi cer s use m or e than a de m inim is am ount of f or c e in car ry i ng o ut an ar re st, the questi on o fwh etherthe use off or ce was r eas onabl e i s f orthe j u ry . Catl i n re l i es he av i l y o n o urde ci si o n i n Abdu l l ahi, wh er e we sai d “si nce the G r a h a m reas onable ness i nquir y nea rl y a l w ays r equir es a j ury to sift thro ugh dis pu ted f actualco ntenti ons, and to draw inferences ther efro m , we have he l d on m any o ccasi ons that sum m ar y j ud gm ent o r j ud gm en t a s a m at t e r o f l a w i n e xc e s s i v e f o r c e c a s e s s ho ul d be gr anted spar i ngl y. ” 4 23 F. 3d at77 3 ( quoti ng San t os v. G a tes , 28 7 F. 3d 846, 85 3 ( 9th Ci r. 20 02) ( i nter nal quotat i on m arks om itted ))

. C atlin focus es on the con clusion of this rem ark

— nam el y, th at su m m ar y jud gm en t s h ou ld be gra n te d sp ar in gly in excess i ve f or ce c ase s

— w hi l e di sr ega rdi ng the prem i se on w hi ch i t was bas ed . The r e as on tha t su m m ar y j udg m en t i s o ften inapp ro pri ate i n exce ss i ve f or ce c ase s i s that the parti es typi cal l y tel l diff er ent sto ri es abou t w h at happ ened. H er e, by contr ast, ther e ar e no m ate ri al f actualdi sputes. A ccor ding to bo th par ti es, Catl i n w as ta c kle d , atwh i ch poi nt U hl i r hel d him i n pla ce b y for c ibly p lac in g h is kn ee on C at lin ’s b ac k w h ile H ale ha nd c uff e d h i m. I n the l i ghto fthe f a c t that C at l i n a dm i tte d that he “st rugg l ed re al l y, r eal l y har d” and m anage d tem pora ri l y t o break f re e , th es e a c tio n s w er e re as on ab le a s a ma t t e r o fl a w. Further, wh i l e there ar e s up er fi ci alsi m i l ar i ti es between th e facts of th e this cas e a n d t h ose of Abdu l l ahi, the f acts and the i ssues pre sente d b y the tw o case s a re di ff er ent.N o. 07

- 3903 11 I n Abdu l l ahi, thr ee o ffi cers t o o kthe a r r es te e to the gr ou nd , atwh i ch poi nt o ne o fthe offi cer s t est i fi ed that he pl ac ed hi s ri g htkne e o n the a r r es te e’ s ba cka nd i ncre ase d the pre ssur e unti l he s topped str uggl i ng. 423 F. 3d at 765. W he n the arrestee w as full y su bd ue d , th e of fi cers reali zed that he had stop p ed breath ing. Pa ram ed ics w ere unabl e t o re susci tat e hi m , and he was l ate r decl ar ed d ea d

. Id. at76 6. Fo ur doct or s t est i fi ed that the a rr est ee su ff er ed f r o m i nj ur i es co ns i st en t wi th st r an g ul at i o n, and th a t h i s c h es t h ad be en cr u sh ed

. Id. Ba s e d o n thi s r e c o r d, w e r ev er se d the di str i ct c ourt ’ s g ra nt o fsum m ar y j ud gm ent forthe defe nd ants, hol ding that, [ t ] he r e a s o nab l e ne s s o fkne e l i ngo n a p r o ne i nd i v i dual ’ s ba ck du ri ng the ar re st turn s, at lea st i n part, o n how m uch f or ce i s appli ed. Kn eel i ng with j ust e nough f or ce t o preve nt an i nd i vi du alfro m “sq u i rm i ng” o r e s c a pi ngmi g htb e em i ne nt l y r e a s o nab l e , wh i l e dr o pp i n g d ow n on an ind ivid u al or ap p lyin g on e’s fu ll w eig h t (p ar tic u lar ly i fo n e is h ea vy ) co u ld ac tu ally ca us e dea th

. Id. at77 1. V iew ed ata h igh lev el of g en er a l i t y, Abdu l l ahis t a nd s f orthe ra ther unsurpri si ng propos i ti on that a knee

- to- theba ckr es tr aintmay o r m ay notb e r ea so nabl e depe ndi ng on the ci rcum sta nces. Wh i l e th i s ma y s e e m t o l e n d s o me su p p or t t o C at lin ’s e x c es siv e fo rc e c laim , Abdu l l ahiis dist i ngui shabl e fro m the prese n t c ase f ortwo r eas ons. F i r st, i n Abdu l l ahi, the o ffi c e r s u s e d deadlyfo rce. Cases in v olv in g d ea d ly for c e w ill ofte n p re se n t m or e d ifficu lt questi ons concerni ng the r eas onabl eness o fthe f or ce12 N o. 07

- 3903

Catli n argues that m edical rec ords s how thathe su ff ered 6 se ri ous i njuri es as a re sul t ofthi s inci dent. Bu t these m edical r e c o r d s p o st -d a t e th e i n c i d e n t b y t w o y e a r s. W h a t e v e r C a t l i n ’s 20 05 M R I re sults sho w , the y d o n ot sh ow tha t the d efend an ts used exc es si ve f orce w hen they ar res ted him i n 2003. that w as used than ca ses l i ke thi s o ne, wh er e the ar reste e w as able to l eave the sc en e w ithou t assistan ce an d ap p aren tl y r equi r ed no i m m edi at e m edi ca l a tt en ti o n. S e c o nd , an d m os t s ign ifica n tly , Abdu l l ahipre sente d disp u ted f ac tu al i ss ue s co nc erni ng th e ty pe o f f o r ce th at th e d efendants used: al th ou gh the def endants te sti fi ed that they m erely placed a kn e e o n th e arrestee’s bac k, th e plaintiff i ntro du ced m ed i calev i dence thatthe ar re ste e had b e e n str an g l e d a nd h i s c he s tc r us he d. H er e, by co ntra st, ther e i s no ev i dence

— di r e c to r c i r c ums t a nt i al

— that contr adic ts the defendants’ ve rs i on o fev ents. 6 I n shor t, i n the p re se nt ca se, unl i ke Abdu l l ahi, there are n o fa c tu al d isp u te s t h e re so lu tio n of w h ich co u ld m ak e it re aso nabl e t o concl ud e that th e d efe nd ants’ use off or ce w as d isp ro p or tio n at e g ive n t h e t h re at th ey rea so n ab ly b e l i e v e d the y f a c e d.

2. Th e d ef end ants’ f ai l ure t o i den t i fy t hem sel ves as offic ers Catl i n al so ar gues, som ew hat m or e pl ausibl y, thati t was u n r e a s o n a b l e f o r th e d e f e n d a n t s t o f a i l t o i d e n t i fy th e msel ves as p olic e o ffi cer s a t s om e poi nt duri ng the ar re st. H er e, i t i s hel pful to di sti ngui sh be tw een the defendants’N o. 07

- 3903 13 f ai l ure to i denti fy them sel ves init ially, and their f ail ure to i denti fy them sel ves aftertheyhad f or ced Catl i n fro m h i s mo t o r c y c l e b u tb e f o r e th e y h a d fu l l y r e s t r a i n e d h i m. It se em s t o u s t h a t t h e re w as n ot h in g u n re as on ab le a b o u tth e d e f e n d a n t s ’ i n i t i a l f a i l u r e t o i d e n t i fy th e mse l ve s. The de f en dan ts b el i ev ed th atCa tl i n was a r m ed an d th atthe r e was a hi g h pr o babi l i ty th at he woul d fi g hti fhe w er e g i ve n t h e o pp or tuni ty. H avi ng co ncl ud ed that they needed to act quick l y in or de r to m i ni m i ze the r i sk to th em se lve s a n d to by st an d er s, th e d efe n d an ts co u ld ha ve r ea so nabl y c o nc l ude d tha t th eyne eded to us e th e el em ent o fsur pri se to thei r advantage

. T h e d e f e n d a n t s ’ c o n t i n u i n gf a i l u r e t o i d e n t i fy th e ms e l v e s a ft e r th e y f o r c e d C a t l i n fr o m h i s m o t o r c y c l e s e e ms to us mor e pr o bl emat i c. On Cat l i n’ s ve r si o n ofe ve nt s, the defe nd ants tol d hi m to “quit re si sti ng” w hen th ey had him f ace-d ow n on th e grass, but th ey d id n ot iden tify t he mse l v e s a s p o l i c e o ffi c e r s u n t i l a ft e r h e w a s h a nd

cuffed. A ssum i ng, as we m ust, the tr uth ofthes e a lleg ations, the risk the d efend an ts r a n i n fail ing to i d en tify th emse l ve s i s that Cat l i n wo ul d thinktha t he was b eing at ta c ke d by co m m on cr im in als an d th at th is w ou ld m ake hi m m or e l i kel y to re si st. I nd eed, thi s m ay h ave been w hat a ctual l y h ap pened. Catl i n adm i tte d that a fter he was f o rced f r o m hi s m o to r cy cl e, he s tr ug g l ed an d m anage d to bre ak f re e. H ad the defendants i denti fi ed th em se lve s a s p olic e o ffice rs , i t is co n c eiv ab le t h at C a t lin m i g htha ve n g i ve n up w ithout a fi g ht, thus o bv i at i ng th e n e e d f o r th e d e f e n d a n t s ’ fi n a l s h o w o f f o r c e . Ata ny ra te, a re aso nabl e j ury m i ght s o concl ud e.14 N o. 07

- 3903

W hil e we d ecl ine to deci de w hether the defendan ts ’ f ailu re 7 t o id e n t i fy th e m se l v e s a s p o l i c e o ffi c e r s v i o l a t e d C a t l i n ’s Four th A m en dm en tr i ght s , we no t e that“[ p] ol i c e offi c er s who unr ea s ona bl y c re at e a ph ys i c al l y thr ea t en i ng s i t uat i on i n the m id st o fa Fourth Am endm ent se izure cannot be i m m unized f orthe us e o fde a dl y f or ce. ” E st ate of Starks v. E n yart, 5 F. 3d 23 0, 23 4 ( 7th Ci r. 19 93 )

. Pr es um abl y thi s i s e qu ally t ru e when pol i c e offi c er s unr ea s ona bly con t ribut e t o a s i t uat i on in which they are forced to us e non- dead ly f orce. On t he othe r han d, we m us tm ake al l owanc es f or the defen d a n ts’ sp li t
- se co n d ju d g m en ts. SeeG ra ham , 490 U.S

. at 396- 97. A cco rd ing ly, ou r sister circ u its hav e b een relu ctan t to ho ld that an of fic er vi olat es the Fourth Am endm ent w here his or her sp lit -se co n d ju d g m en ts e xa ce rb a te th e n ee d for for ce . S ee G razi er ex re l. Wh ite v . C ity o f P h ila d elp h ia , 3 2 8 F
. 3 d 1 2 0 , 1 2 7( 3 d Ci r. 2 0 0 3 ); D rew itt v . P r att, 99 9 F .2d 77 4 , 78 0 (4t h C ir . 19 9 3 ); F rai re v. C i ty of

A rl i ngto n , 95 7F .2d 12 6 8 , 12 7 6 (5t h C ir . 19 9 2 ). I t s eem s t o us a cl ose questi on w hetherthe defe nd ants’ f ai l ure to i denti fy them sel ves w as obj ecti vel y unreas o n a b l e u n d e r the ci r c u ms t a n c e s . Ho we v e r, e v e n i fwe 7 ass um e that the defe nd ants’ f ai l ure to i denti fy them sel ves as offi cer s a fterwrestl i ng Catl i n fro m hi s m otor c yc l e was obj ec tiv el y unre aso nabl e, theywould st i l l be enti tl ed to quali fi ed i m m unity unl ess the pu tat i ve unlaw fu l ness of th ei r c o nduc t was a ppar en t i n the l i g hto fpr e- ex i sti ng l a w . Ande rs on v. Cr e ight on , 48 3 U.S

. 63 5, 64 0 ( 1987); see also B urks v . Ra em is ch , 55 5 F
. 3d 592, 59 6 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09) ( “P u b lic em plo yee s a re notr equi re d, at thei r fi nanci al p eril, to ant ic ip ate d evelop m en ts in con stitut ional l aw . ”). Even w here a pla i nt iffcan show that a n offi cer ’ s use o f f or ce was o bj ecti vel y unre aso nabl e, qual i fi ed i m m unityN o. 07

- 3903 15

W i thoutr ea c hi ng the que s t i on ofwhethe r s uc h a c ons t i t u- 8 ti on a l o bl i ga t i one x i s t s , the F i r s tCi r c ui th e l d tha tthi s pu t a t i ve obligati on w ould no t have been c le arl y es tabli shed i n 1990. S ee S t. H ila ire v . C ity o f L a c o n ia , 71 F .3d 20 , 27 -2 8 (1s t C ir . 19 9 5 ). affo rd s t h e o ffice r an ad d itio n al la ye r of p ro te c tio n . See Sa uc ier, 5 33 U
. S. a t 20 5. S pec i fi ca l l y, whi l e th e su bs ta ntiv e c on st itu tio n al s ta n d a r d p ro te c ts offic er s’ re as on ab le f actualm i sta kes , qual i fi ed i m m unity pr ote cts them fro m l i ab i l i ty wher e th ey r ea so nabl y m i sj udg e th e l eg als ta nd ar d

. See B arb a r a E . A rm ac os t, Q ual i f i e d Im m uni ty: I

gnoran ce E xc used, 51 Van d . L
. Rev. 58 3, 65 0- 51 ( 1998 ) ; Ter ess a E . Ra ve n ell, H am m er in g in Sc re w s: W hy the C ourt Shou ld Look Beyo nd Summ ary Judg m entW he n Re s ol vi ng § 1 983 Q ua lified Im m un ity D ispu tes , 52 V il l. L. Rev. 135, 156 (2007 ). I n the prese nt case , i t i s f arfro m cl ear l y e stabl i shed that the F ourth A m endm ent r equi re s pol i ce officers to i denti fy them sel ves i n th e cours e o fcar ry i ng o ut an ar re st i n a publ i c pl ace. T o th e c o n t r a r y, wh i l e t he Sup re m e Cour t has hel d that pol i ce o ffi cer s usual l y m ust an no unc e th ei r i den ti tybefo r e ca r r y i ngo uta n a r r es t i n a pri vate dw el l i ng , Wi l s on v. Arkans as , 51 4 U.S

. 92 7, 93 4 ( 1995 ) , we are aware ofn o cour t o fappeal s deci si on that has r eco gni zed a const i tuti onalo bl i gation on the part of th e p o l i c e t o a n n o u n c e th e i r i d e n t i t y wh e n th e y c a r r y o ut an ar re st i n a publ i c pl ace. Furth er, the dist ri ct c ourt s 8 tha th a v e c o ns i de r e d thi s i s s ue a r e , i fa ny thing, di v i de d. Com pareJohns on v. Gr ob , 92 8 F . Su p p . 8 89, 90 5 ( W

. D. M o. 19 96 ) (“a se izu re ou ts id e t h e h om e m ay be u n re as on ab le because the offi c er s i nvol ved w er e no t i denti fi ed or16 N o. 07

- 3903 iden tifiable as such , and th e seized pers on su ffers inj uries bec au se of the officers’ l ack of i d en tification.”) and N e wel l v. Ci ty of

Sa l i na , 2 76 F
. S upp. 2 d 1 14 8, 1 15 5 ( D. Kan. 2003 ) ( hol ding that a s ei zure “with ou t havi ng i denti fi ed them se l v e s a s l a w e nfo r c e men to ffi c e r s , ma y n o tbe obj ectively reason able.”) w ith Sa nc hez v . C ity of N ew Yo rk, No. 9 6- C- 72 54, 2 00 0 W L 98 72 88 , a t * 5 ( S

. D. N
. Y. J ul y 1 7, 2 00 0) ( r ej ec tingthe pl aint i ff’ s F o ur thAm en dm en t cl ai m bec ause i t “ ass um es the uncer tai n propos itio n th a tth e r e a s o n a b l e n e s s o fa s e i z u r e o u t s i d e th e h o me depend s o n w hetherthe pol i ce offi cer m ade an announcem en t or i d en tification”). I fther e i s a l egit im ate questi on a s t o the e xi ste nce o f the r i ght at iss ue, then quali fi ed i m m unity a tta ches. M it ch el l v . F orsyth , 4 72 U. S

. 5 11 , 5 35 n. 12 ( 19 85 )

. I n the pr e s e ntc a s e , e v e n i fthe de f e nd a nt s h a d c onsu l t e d a c as eb oo k p rior to form u lat in g t h e i r p lan , th ey st ill w ou ld not have had fa i r noti ce th at they had a co nsti tuti onal o b l i g a t i o n t o a n n o u n c e th e i r i d e n t i t y p r i o r t o c o mple ti ng the ar re st. Thus, t h ey ar e e nti tl ed to qual i fi ed i m m unity.

I I I . C ONC L US I ON I t is con ceivab le that th e d efend an ts’ f ail ure to i d en tify th em se lve s a s o ffice rs aft er init ially res t r ain in g C at lin i nc r e a s e d th e l i k e l i h o o d th a th e wo u l d r e s i s t, a n d th us i ncre ase d the am ou n t of fo rce theyhad to use i n or der t o eff ect hi s a rr est
. N eve rt hel ess , i t i s no t cl ear l y e stabl i shed th at th e d efend an ts ha ve a con stitut ional du ty t o i d en tifyN o. 07

- 3903 17 them sel ves as offi cer s a ftertheyi ni ti al l y i m m obi l i ze a n a r r e s t e e b u tb e f o r e th e y fu l l y r e s t r a i n h i m. A FFI RMED .

7- 21- 09