IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-10856

ERIN LINCOLN, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of John 

Lincoln, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant 

v. 

PATRICK TURNER, 

 Defendant - Appellee 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas 

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. 

PATRICK E. HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judge:

The police shot and killed John Lincoln as he stood beside then eighteenyear-old daughter Erin. She here alleges that after she collapsed and cried out, 

Officer Patrick Turner picked her up, threw her over his shoulder, and carried 

her to a police car, where she sat handcuffed against her will. Erin brought 

suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Turner, alleging unreasonable seizure and 

excessive force. The district court sustained Turner’s defense of immunity and 

granted his motion to dismiss. We AFFIRM.

United States Court of Appeals

Fif h Circuit

FILED

October 31, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-10856 Document: 00514217795 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/31/2017
No. 16-10856

2

I.

As this case comes to us from a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, we accept 

Erin’s well-pleaded facts as true.1 Erin alleges that on the night of December 

26, 2013, her father, John Lincoln—diagnosed with bipolar disorder and out of 

his medication—took a gun from his father’s house and went to his mother

Kathleen’s home. When John arrived, Kathleen was not home, but Erin was.

John’s father believed that John was a threat to Kathleen and called 

John’s sister Kelly, an Arlington Police Department officer. Kelly then called 

the Colleyville Police Department and told them that John might pose a threat 

to Kathleen. A large SWAT team arrived, including officers from multiple 

police departments. A police dispatcher contacted Erin, who explained that her 

father would not hurt her. As the stand-off continued, Erin attempted to calm 

her father. At one point the phone rang, and Erin, knowing it was the police,

urged her father not to answer it “because it would upset him.” John answered 

the phone and became upset.

At some point, John began opening the front door and shouting at the 

police while holding his father’s gun. Every time John opened the door, Erin 

was standing next to him. The final time John opened the door, the police shot 

and killed him.

When Erin fell to the ground beside John and cried out, Turner 

handcuffed her and threw her over his shoulder. Erin alleges that “Turner 

carried her into the backyard, hung her roughly over the back gate and then 

threw her onto her feet. Erin was then put [] in the back of a police car in 

handcuffs;” she “did not fight, struggle, or resist;” and she was eventually taken 

 

1 Bustos v. Martini Club Inc., 599 F.3d 458, 461 (5th Cir. 2010). The background of 

this case is summarized in a recent opinion stemming from the same set of facts. Lincoln v. 

Barnes, 855 F.3d 297, 299 (5th Cir. 2017).

 Case: 16-10856 Document: 00514217795 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/31/2017
No. 16-10856

3

to the police station by another officer, where she was interrogated for five 

hours.

Erin sued several police officers, including Turner.2 She filed her original 

complaint in October 2015 and she amended several months later. The district 

court granted Turner’s motion to dismiss. It found that Erin insufficiently pled

her claim as required by Rule 8(a)(2), and alternatively that Erin did not 

overcome qualified immunity. 

Erin appeals.3

II.

“We review a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to 

state a claim de novo, ‘accepting all well-pleaded facts as true and viewing 

those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.’”4 “The grant of a motion 

to dismiss based on qualified immunity similarly is reviewed de novo.”5

A.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) states: “A pleading that states a 

claim for relief must contain . . . a short and plain statement of the claim 

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief[.]”6 “To survive a motion to 

dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, 

to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ A claim has facial 

 

2 Kathleen Lincoln was originally named as a plaintiff, but she voluntarily dismissed 

her appeal. Additionally, because of a clerical error, Jimmy Rodriguez was initially named as 

a defendant-appellee in this appeal. Plaintiffs later moved to correct their mistake, and the 

appeal as to Rodriguez was dismissed. 3 The district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343. This Court has 

jurisdiction to review final decisions under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

4 Bustos, 599 F.3d at 461 (quoting True v. Robles, 571 F.3d 412, 417 (5th Cir. 2009)); 

accord Whitley v. Hanna, 726 F.3d 631, 637 (5th Cir. 2013).

5 Whitley, 726 F.3d at 637.

6 See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (“8(a)(2) requires only ‘a short 

and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to 

‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests[.]’”) 

(quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)).

 Case: 16-10856 Document: 00514217795 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/31/2017
No. 16-10856

4

plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to 

draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct 

alleged.”7 “While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss 

does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the 

‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and 

conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will 

not do.”8

Turner moved under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Citing 

Twombly9 and Iqbal,10 the district court concluded that “plaintiffs have alleged 

little more than bare legal conclusions” and that “[t]he facts pleaded do no more 

than permit the court to infer the possibility of misconduct and that is not 

enough to allow plaintiffs to go forward with their claims.”11

Erin argues that she sufficiently alleged claims for unconstitutional 

seizure and excessive force.12 She contends that the district court erred when 

it stated there was no allegation of Erin having contact with Turner, since she 

“allege[d] that Turner cuffed her, physically threw her over his shoulder, threw 

 

7 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (internal citations omitted).

8 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (internal citations omitted); accord Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

9 550 U.S. 544 (2007).

10 556 U.S. 662 (2009).

11 Many difficulties of determining the adequacy of pleadings could be avoided by the 

district court’s ordering a plaintiff to “file a reply tailored to an answer pleading the defense 

of qualified immunity.” Schultea v. Wood, 47 F.3d 1427, 1433–34 (5th Cir. 1995). See also 

Anderson v. Valdez, 845 F.3d 580, 590 (5th Cir. 2016) (noting that when a defendant asserts 

a qualified immunity defense, the court must first “apply[] [the] general pleading standard 

to the complaint” and “may [then], in its discretion, insist that a plaintiff file a reply”). The 

district court may require particularized pleading of facts responsive to the defendant’s plea 

of immunity. Officer Turner filed a Motion to Dismiss and, in the Alternative, for a Rule 7(a) 

Reply to Immunity Defense. The district court granted the motion to dismiss without 

ordering a Rule 7 reply. 

12 After summarizing cases concerning unconstitutional seizures, Erin concludes that 

she has “stated a claim that the force used upon her was excessive and unreasonable under 

the circumstances” (emphasis added). Erin’s reference to excessive force here is likely a typo, 

as the preceding argument concerned her seizure claim, not her excessive force claim.

 Case: 16-10856 Document: 00514217795 Page: 4 Date Filed: 10/31/2017
No. 16-10856

5

her over a fence and then physically placed her, against her will and still 

handcuffed, into the back of a patrol car.” Erin also maintains that she

sufficiently alleged the elements of an excessive force claim; specifically, she

maintains that she alleged (1) “a severe emotional injury,” (2) “which resulted 

from a use of force that was clearly excessive,” and (3) “[that] excessiveness . . 

. was clearly unreasonable.”

Turner counters that “Erin has not pleaded sufficient facts to show that 

[he] unreasonably seized her as a material witness and suspect after John was 

shot,” and that with respect to excessive force, Erin pled “only de minimis 

injuries consistent with a constitutional handcuffing” and did not show that 

Turner directly caused the injuries or “plead facts sufficient to show that the 

force used was excessive in light of the hostage/criminal situation.” 

We hold that Erin sufficiently pled unconstitutional seizure and 

excessive force, and address each in turn.

1.

The Fourth Amendment states in relevant part: “The right of the people 

to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable 

searches and seizures, shall not be violated[.]”13 The extent of this 

constitutional protection varies with the type of seizure at issue. “The Fourth 

Amendment applies to all seizures of the person, including seizures that 

involve only a brief detention short of traditional arrest.”14 “This court has 

recognized that there are different ‘tiers of citizen-police contact for purposes 

of [F]ourth [A]mendment analysis.’”15 That is:

 

13 U.S. CONST. amend. IV. 

14 United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 878 (1975) (citing Davis v. 

Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721 (1969); and Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 16–19 (1968)).

15 United States v. Massi, 761 F.3d 512, 520 (5th Cir. 2014) (quoting United States v. 

Zukas, 843 F.2d 179, 181 (1988)).

 Case: 16-10856 Document: 00514217795 Page: 5 Date Filed: 10/31/2017
No. 16-10856

6

The first tier involves no coercion or detention and does not 

implicate the fourth amendment. The second tier, an investigatory 

stop, is a brief seizure that must be supported by reasonable 

suspicion . . . Finally, the third tier is a full scale arrest [which] 

must be supported by probable cause.16

Brown v. Texas17 articulated a test that has been used to analyze 

detentions not easily categorized as investigatory stops or arrests, such as 

“stop and identify” detentions,18 check-point stops,19 and some witness 

detentions.20 Detentions that begin as one type can transform into another.21

As we will explain, the claimed detention here could be classified as a de 

facto arrest requiring probable cause, an investigatory stop that must be 

supported by reasonable suspicion, or a witness detention subject to the Brown 

balancing test.22 Rather than press these categories, whose boundaries are 

blurred, we treat each type of detention in turn, and conclude that Erin has 

sufficiently stated a claim under all three standards. 

a. 

Based on the allegations in her amended complaint, Erin’s detention 

may rise to the level of a de facto arrest that must be supported by probable 

 

16 Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

17 443 U.S. 47 (1979).

18 See Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nevada, Humboldt Cty., 542 U.S. 177, 184 

(2004).

19 See Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419, 426–27 (2004).

20 See Walker v. City of Orem, 451 F.3d 1139, 1148 (10th Cir. 2006); Maxwell v. Cty. of 

San Diego, 708 F.3d 1075, 1083 (9th Cir. 2013). But see Lincoln, 855 F.3d at 303, holding that 

Brown’s balancing test should not apply to Erin’s subsequent detention at a police station 

because the case “expressly limited its analysis to ‘[t]he reasonableness of seizures that are 

far less intrusive than a traditional arrest.’” 855 F.3d at 303 (citing Brown, 433 U.S. at 50).

21 For instance, “[a] detention initially authorized by Terry can, due to its duration, 

transform into the equivalent of an arrest.” Massi, 761 F.3d at 522 (citing United States v. 

Zavala, 541 F.3d 562, 579 (5th Cir. 2008)).

22 The district court characterized Turner’s alleged actions as “detain[ing] a witness . 

. . while an investigation was underway.” Erin argues that her detention was unjustified 

regardless of whether she was held as a witness or a suspect. And Turner refers to Erin as 

both a “material witness” and a “potential suspect.” 

 Case: 16-10856 Document: 00514217795 Page: 6 Date Filed: 10/31/2017
No. 16-10856

7

cause. “An arrest occurs when, ‘in view of the all the circumstances 

surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was 

not free to leave.’”23 This is a fact-specific inquiry.24 Here, Erin alleges that 

Turner handcuffed her and placed her in the back of a police car against her 

will for approximately two hours.25 Taking these facts as true, a reasonable 

person could “believe that her freedom was restrained to a degree typically 

associated with arrest.”26 Such a detention must be supported by probable 

cause. “Probable cause exists ‘when the totality of the facts and circumstances 

within a police officer’s knowledge at the moment of arrest are sufficient for a 

reasonable person to conclude that the suspect had committed or was 

committing an offense.’”27 Importantly, “[t]he facts must be known to the 

 

23 Massi, 761 F.3d at 522 (quoting United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554 

(1980)).

24 See, e.g., Freeman v. Gore, 483 F.3d 404, 413 (5th Cir. 2007) (holding that an arrest 

occurred where police handcuffed a woman’s hands behind her back and placed her in a police 

car for 30 to 45 minutes). But cf. United States v. Jordan, 232 F.3d 447, 450 (5th Cir. 2000) 

(holding that “[h]andcuffing a suspect does not automatically convert an investigatory 

detention into an arrest requiring probable cause,” where handcuffs are used long enough to 

frisk a suspect who did not fully comply with police orders).

25 Further, the amended complaint alleges that Erin’s aunt Kelly spoke with police 

officers on the scene twice during Erin’s detention, and that both times the officers refused 

to release Erin into her aunt’s car. Erin does not claim that she knew this when she was being 

detained, so it does not go to whether she believed she was not free to leave.

26 Freeman, 483 F.3d at 413. Turner states that there is “no rigid time limit on the 

duration of an investigatory detention,” and points to an Eighth Circuit case holding that a 

three-hour detention did not constitute de facto arrest. See United States v. Maltais, 403 F.3d 

550, 556 (8th Cir. 2005). While Turner is correct that we have never set such a time limit, his 

reliance on Maltais is misplaced. In that case, the court pointed to several factors that 

justified a longer detention—most importantly, that the two men were alone in a remote area 

near the Canadian border late at night, “making flight a distinct possibility” and resulting in 

a longer-than-average response time. Id. at 556. Indeed, the court noted that “a detention of 

this length would be unreasonable under different circumstances,” but held that “the unusual 

situation here made it impractical for law enforcement officials to respond any sooner than 

they did,” thus justifying a long detention. Id. at 556–57. We see no facts alleged in the 

amended complaint that would require such an extended investigatory detention here. 

27 Haggerty v. Texas S. Univ., 391 F.3d 653, 655–56 (5th Cir. 2004) (quoting Glenn v. 

City of Tyler, 242 F.3d 307, 313 (5th Cir. 2001)).

 Case: 16-10856 Document: 00514217795 Page: 7 Date Filed: 10/31/2017
No. 16-10856

8

officer at the time of the arrest; post-hoc justifications based on facts later 

learned cannot support an earlier arrest.”28

Turner argues that “[s]everal crimes and potential crimes had taken 

place, and police were about to investigate.”29 Yet Turner only connects Erin 

to one potential crime: interfering with police officer’s attempts to 

communicate with John before the shooting. To support this claim, Turner 

points to Erin’s admission in the amended complaint that she urged her father 

not to answer the phone when the police called. However, while Erin included 

this information in the amended complaint, there is no indication that the 

police knew about this at the time Turner seized Erin.30 Nothing else in Erin’s 

amended complaint could lead to the conclusion that Erin had committed or 

was going to commit an offense. In short, “the facts as alleged in the amended 

complaint do not permit a conclusion that [Turner] had probable cause to 

arrest [Erin] [for interference] at the time of the arrest[].”31 Said differently,

the “factual content” pled “allows the court to draw the reasonable inference 

that the defendant is liable for” an unconstitutional arrest.32

 

28 Club Retro, L.L.C. v. Hilton, 568 F.3d 181, 204 (5th Cir. 2009); accord Freeman, 483 

F.3d at 414 (“Although the probable cause inquiry is an objective one, it must nevertheless 

be conducted in light of the actual facts known to the officer at the time of arrest.”). 

29 In the district court, Turner argued, “there was probable cause for Officer Turner 

to believe that it was lawful to detain Erin Lincoln (as her role was not known and as she 

was hysterical and volatile). Furthermore, based upon that same information and 

circumstances, a reasonable Police Officer in Officer Turner’s situation could have concluded 

that Erin Lincoln was an imminent threat to herself and others.” Moreover, he argued that 

exigent circumstances justified his restraint and removal of Erin. On appeal, Turner 

abandons all three of these rationales.

30 In response to this argument, Turner argues that Erin attempts to improperly shift 

the burden. Turner has no burden at this stage. See Bustos, 599 F.3d at 461 (plaintiff must 

plead sufficiently to state a claim). However, the facts as alleged, and when viewed in the 

light most favorable to the plaintiff, demonstrate that Turner did not know that Erin urged

her father not to answer up the phone.

31 Club Retro, 568 F.3d at 204.

32 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

 Case: 16-10856 Document: 00514217795 Page: 8 Date Filed: 10/31/2017
No. 16-10856

9

b. 

Even if Erin’s seizure were treated as a less intrusive investigatory 

detention, she states a plausible claim. “[U]nder the ‘very narrow exception’

announced in Terry v. Ohio, police officers may briefly detain a person for 

investigative purposes if they can point to ‘specific and articulable facts’ that 

give rise to reasonable suspicion that a particular person has committed, is 

committing, or is about to commit a crime.”33

Turner argues that he had reasonable suspicion to detain Erin, 

emphasizing that legal conduct can support reasonable suspicion; that “there 

is no rigid time limit on the duration of an investigatory detention”; and that,

based on the events leading up to the police shooting and that an investigation 

was about to commence, “officers could have reasonably suspected that Erin 

may have been involved in criminal activity.” Turner specifically argues that 

reasonable suspicion existed that Erin was “part of a larger criminal 

enterprise” including interference with police officers. We disagree.

Turner does not clarify what “larger criminal enterprise” he repeatedly 

refers to. In any event, suspicion of unidentified criminal activity is not the 

 

33 United States v. Monsivais, 848 F.3d 353, 357 (5th Cir. 2017) (internal citations 

omitted); accord United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7 (1989) (“[T]he police can stop and 

briefly detain a person for investigative purposes if the officer has a reasonable suspicion 

supported by articulable facts that criminal activity ‘may be afoot,’ even if the officer lacks 

probable cause.”).

There is some discussion about whether under Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 38.15, Erin’s 

conduct constituted permissible “speech only” interference, and whether such an argument 

was waived. Section 38.15 states in relevant part: “(a) A person commits an offense if the 

person with criminal negligence interrupts, disrupts, impedes, or otherwise interferes with: 

(1) a peace officer while the peace officer is performing a duty or exercising authority imposed 

or granted by law[.]” TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 38.15 (West). However, “[i]t is a defense to 

prosecution under this section that the interruption, disruption, impediment, or interference 

alleged consisted of speech only.” Id. at § 38.15(d). Turner states in his brief, “there is no 

indication that Erin was charged with or that Officer Turner detained her for interference 

with public duties.” We need not decide that question here. 

 Case: 16-10856 Document: 00514217795 Page: 9 Date Filed: 10/31/2017
No. 16-10856

10

kind of “particularized and objective basis for suspecting legal wrongdoing”34

that is necessary to support detention. Nor does the case law support a finding 

of reasonable suspicion on these allegations. The cases that Turner relies on 

treat detentions based on specific, articulable clues that a particular type of 

crime might be afoot. For example, in United States v. Sokolow, 35 although 

the Supreme Court suggested that a series of innocent actions could amount to 

reasonable suspicion, the innocent actions in that case included paying for 

airline tickets with $20 bills, traveling under a different name, traveling to 

Miami from Hawaii for only 48 hours, appearing nervous, and not checking 

luggage.36 The Court held that there was “a reasonable basis to suspect that 

respondent was transporting illegal drugs on these facts.”37 There is not a 

similar series of innocent conduct that combines to allow for reasonable 

suspicion of a crime here. 

United States v. Montoya de Hernandez38 is similarly inapt. In that case, 

customs inspectors noted that a suspect had made several recent trips between 

Bogota and the United States, spoke no English, had no relatives or friends in 

the country, and carried $5,000 cash and no credit cards.39 She told inspectors 

that she was on a business trip, but had no appointments and no hotel 

reservations.40 The Supreme Court found that the customs inspectors had 

“reasonable suspicion” that this particular traveler was smuggling drugs in her 

alimentary canal given her “implausible story” and the inspectors’ previous 

 

34 Monsivais, 848 F.3d at 357 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting United 

States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273 (2002)).

35 490 U.S. 1 (1989).

36 See id. at 3, 9. 37 Id. at 11.

38 473 U.S. 531 (1985). 39 Id. at 533. 

40 Id. 

 Case: 16-10856 Document: 00514217795 Page: 10 Date Filed: 10/31/2017
No. 16-10856

11

experience with such smugglers. 41 Turner argues that while not as “stark” as 

those in Montoya, the facts alleged in the amended complaint establish 

reasonable suspicion. Yet Turner fails to point to a single fact to support such 

suspicion beyond Erin’s “admitted[] interfer[ence]” with officers’ attempts to 

communicate with John.

Accepting Erin’s allegations as true, Turner lacked the “minimal level of 

objective justification”42 to detain her. In short, Erin pled a plausible claim, 

even if her seizure is seen to be an investigatory detention.

c. 

Finally, Erin has sufficiently pled unreasonable seizure even if we 

assume that she was detained as a witness. The Fourth Amendment arrives

“whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to 

walk away.”43 In recent years, the Court has held that the Fourth 

Amendment’s reasonableness requirement constrains detention of potential 

witnesses to a crime—even when the intrusion goes no further than a brief 

checkpoint stop.44 In these suspicionless stops, courts often apply Brown v. 

Texas, requiring weighing (1) “the gravity of the public concerns served by the 

seizure,” (2) “the degree to which the seizure advances the public interest,” and 

(3) “the severity of the interference with individual liberty.”45

Erin argues that her detention was not a permissible witness detention, 

distinguishing the situation at hand from the type of brief investigatory 

checkpoint stop authorized by the Supreme Court in Illinois v. Lidster. Turner 

counters that Erin has not sufficiently pled facts “to show that [he] 

unreasonably seized her as a material witness,” though elsewhere he 

 

41 See id. at 542.

42 Sokolow, 490 U.S. at 7 (citation omitted).

43 Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 16 (1968). 

44 Lidster, 540 U.S. 419, 426–27. 

45 Brown, 443 U.S. at 50–51. 

 Case: 16-10856 Document: 00514217795 Page: 11 Date Filed: 10/31/2017
No. 16-10856

12

distinguishes Erin from a mere “member of the public” and suggests that she 

was “potentially a suspect in a larger criminal enterprise.”

The allegations make out a sufficient claim for an unreasonable 

detention even she was detained as a witness. The Supreme Court’s application 

of Brown in Lidster is instructive, finding it reasonable to briefly detain drivers 

at a roadside checkpoint to question motorists about a hit-and-run in the 

area.46 The Court found that the public concern was grave, since the police 

were investigating a “specific and known crime” that had “resulted in a human 

death”;47 that it was tailored to obtain information from drivers who might 

have seen the accident;48 and that “[m]ost importantly, the stops interfered 

only minimally with liberty of the sort the Fourth Amendment seeks to 

protect.”49 In weighing this final factor, the Court noted that the stops required 

only “a very few minutes” in line and “only a few seconds” of police contact, and 

that they “provided little reason for anxiety and alarm.”50

As in Lidster, this case brings to us a matter of significant public concern. 

And the second factor may weigh even more in favor of the police here—Erin 

was present at the crime scene, and in fact was the only person inside the house 

with her father. Through the eyes of a reasonable police officer, she was likely

to possess helpful information, and it was reasonable to seek it, at least to 

confirm her identity and contact information. Accepting this, the facts alleged 

here went beyond the bounds of a reasonable detention.51 This was not the type 

of “minimally intrusive” stop authorized by Lidster. Instead, a distressed 

 

46 Lidster, 540 U.S. at 428. 

47 Id. at 427. 

48 Id.

49 Id. 

50 Id. at 428. 

51 “[W]hile the police have the right to request citizens to answer voluntarily questions 

concerning unsolved crimes[,] they have no right to compel them to answer.” Davis v. 

Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721, 724 (1969). 

 Case: 16-10856 Document: 00514217795 Page: 12 Date Filed: 10/31/2017
No. 16-10856

13

young woman was handcuffed and left in the back of a police car for almost two 

hours. The stop provoked significant “anxiety and alarm,” and lasted much 

longer than necessary to obtain information. 

Confronting a similar question, two circuits agree that detaining police 

cannot detain a person for a significant period of time solely because she 

witnessed a police shooting.52 In Walker, the Tenth Circuit concluded that “a 

ninety minute detention for this purpose [of obtaining names, addresses, and 

voluntary statements from witnesses] was unreasonable.”53 In Maxwell, the 

Ninth Circuit similarly found that law enforcement officers could not “detain, 

separate, and interrogate the [witnesses] for hours” solely as witnesses.54 In so 

holding, both courts noted that “[e]ven in the Terry stop context—which 

involves a suspicion of criminal activity that is absent here—the Supreme 

Court has never endorsed a detention longer than 90 minutes.”55

As our sister circuits noted, “[w]hat little authority exists on [the] 

question [of witness detention], suggests that police have less authority to 

detain those who have witnessed a crime for investigatory purposes than to 

detain criminal suspects.”56 We agree, and find that Erin has sufficiently pled

an unreasonable seizure even under the Brown v. Texas balancing test. Erin 

has alleged a detention that would have been unreasonable if she were a 

suspect.

 

52 See Walker, 451 F.3d at 1149–50 (holding that a ninety-minute detention of 

witnesses to a police shooting was not “justified by either the need for investigation of a crime 

or control of a crime scene”). See also Maxwell, 708 F.3d at 1083.

53 Id. at 1149. 

54 Maxwell, 708 F.3d at 1084. 

55 Id. (citing United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 709–10 (1983)); accord Walker, 451 

F.3d at 1149 (citing Place, 462 U.S. at 709–10).

56 451 F.3d 1139, 1148 (10th Cir. 2006) (citing 3 Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure: 

A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment § 9.2(a), at 289 (4th ed. 2004)). 

 Case: 16-10856 Document: 00514217795 Page: 13 Date Filed: 10/31/2017
No. 16-10856

14

2.

We turn to whether Erin sufficiently pled excessive force. The district

court thought that “[t]here [was] no allegation that Erin or her family had any 

contact with movants, physical or verbal.” This was mistaken. Erin alleged the 

following physical contact between herself and Turner:

Erin was handcuffed and thrown over the shoulder of Defendant 

Patrick Turner. Erin, terrified, did not fight, struggle or resist. 

Turner carried her into the backyard, hung her roughly over the 

back gate and then threw her onto her feet. Erin was then put her 

in the back of a police car in handcuffs.57

Given these factual allegations, we cannot agree with the district court

that Erin “alleged little more than bare legal conclusions.”

“To succeed on an excessive force claim, a plaintiff bears the burden of 

showing (1) an injury (2) which resulted directly and only from the use of force 

that was excessive to the need and (3) the force used was objectively 

unreasonable.”58 At this pleading stage, Erin has pled facts that would “allow[]

the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 

misconduct alleged.”59

We have stated that “[a]lthough a showing of ‘significant injury’ is no 

longer required in the context of an excessive force claim, ‘[this Court] 

require[s] a plaintiff asserting an excessive force claim to have suffered at least 

some form of injury.’ The injury must be more than a de minimis injury and 

must be evaluated in the context in which the force was deployed.”60 Although 

Erin alleges receiving bruises and scratches, she points to her psychological 

injuries, like sleeplessness, anxiety, and depression, as the sufficient injuries

 

57 Erin also alleged “verbal” contact of questioning her custody and requesting to see 

her father, which was ignored.

58 Glenn, 242 F.3d at 314 (internal quotation marks omitted).

59 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citation omitted).

60 Glenn, 242 F.3d at 314 (citations and some internal quotation marks omitted).

 Case: 16-10856 Document: 00514217795 Page: 14 Date Filed: 10/31/2017
No. 16-10856

15

to support her excessive force claim.61 Erin is correct that psychological injuries 

can satisfy the injury requirement. This Court has explained:

While certain injuries are so slight that they will never satisfy the 

injury element, see, e.g., Glenn, 242 F.3d at 314 (holding that 

“handcuffing too tightly, without more, does not amount to 

excessive force”), psychological injuries may sustain a Fourth 

Amendment claim. See Dunn v. Denk, 79 F.3d 401, 402 (5th Cir. 

1996) (en banc). The plaintiff’s physical injuries in Dunn were only 

bruises, but she suffered substantial psychological injuries. We 

held that she alleged an injury sufficient to demonstrate the 

violation of a clearly established constitutional right.62

Turner does not fully engage Erin’s assertion that her psychological 

injuries are sufficient here. Rather, he argues that handcuffing injuries are 

often insufficient and that “Erin did not allege these injuries ‘resulted directly 

and only’ from Officer Turner’s actions, but that she was injured by ‘the force 

used on her’ and ‘further traumatized’ by Officer Turner’s actions.” 

The argument that Erin failed to sufficiently connect her injuries to 

Turner’s actions is not without any footing, as Turner was not the only officer 

involved. But Erin’s amended complaint alleges that “[w]hen Defendant 

Turner handcuffed [Erin] and threw her over his shoulder, she was shocked 

and terrified. She sustained bruises and scratches from the force used on her 

and was further traumatized by the actions of the officer.” At the pleading 

stage, these factual allegations are sufficient to connect Erin’s alleged injuries 

to Turner’s use of force—and therefore to sufficiently plead causation. To 

 

61 Because Erin alleges these psychological injuries, we need not address whether a 

more than “de minimis” injury is still required for a Fourth Amendment excessive force claim 

in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34 (2010) (holding 

that a more than de minimis injury is not required to support an excessive force claim brought 

under the Eighth Amendment). Cf. Bone v. Dunnaway, 657 F. App’x 258, 262 n.3 (5th Cir. 

2016).

62 Flores v. City of Palacios, 381 F.3d 391, 397–98 (5th Cir. 2004) (some internal 

citations omitted). 

 Case: 16-10856 Document: 00514217795 Page: 15 Date Filed: 10/31/2017
No. 16-10856

16

conclude otherwise would mean that when a plaintiff suffers injuries at the 

hands of multiple officers for multiple reasons, she will be precluded from 

stating an excessive force claim against any single officer for failure to allege 

that her injuries “resulted directly and only from”63 that particular officer’s 

excessive use of force.

Finally, Erin has sufficiently pled that the force used by Turner was 

objectively unreasonable. “To ‘gaug[e] the objective reasonableness of the force 

used by a law enforcement officer, we must balance the amount of force used 

against the need for force.’ This balancing test ‘requires careful attention to the 

facts and circumstances of each particular case.’”64 Given Erin’s allegations 

that she did not “fight, struggle or resist in any way” and “questioned why she 

was being taken into custody,” Turner’s alleged force was excessive.

Turner argues that Erin’s own descriptions of herself after the shooting

“justif[ied] Officer Turner’s actions to secure Erin—a ‘severely traumatized, 

non-compliant, unidentified, victim/suspect[.]”65 Although Erin alleged that 

she was grief-stricken,66 she also alleged—contrary to Turner’s 

characterization—that she was compliant. Erin further alleged that Turner 

never asked her to stand up, move away from her father, or follow him to a 

different location.67 The factual allegations show that Turner’s use of force was 

excessive to the need and thus unreasonable. As a result, Erin has sufficiently 

pled a claim of excessive force.

 

63 Glenn, 242 F.3d at 314.

64 Flores, 381 F.3d at 399 (quoting Ikerd v. Blair, 101 F.3d 430, 434 (1996)).

65 Turner states that the amended complaint describes Erin as “screaming in terror” 

and “in extreme distress as a result of the shooting of her father.”

66 According to the amended complaint, “Erin fell to the ground crying out in terror.”

67 Erin also alleges that “[t]here was no verbal request by anyone to Erin asking her 

to comply with any command or offering her any assistance before she was handcuffed and 

roughly removed from the scene against her will. There was no attempt to escort her from 

the scene and no request for her to remove herself before she was handcuffed and physically 

removed.”

 Case: 16-10856 Document: 00514217795 Page: 16 Date Filed: 10/31/2017
No. 16-10856

17

B.

Although we hold that Erin has adequately pled her claims to survive a 

Rule 12(b)(6) challenge, her claims may still be barred on the basis of qualified 

immunity. “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil 

liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory 

or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’”68

“When a defendant invokes qualified immunity, the burden shifts to the 

plaintiff to demonstrate the inapplicability of the defense.”69 “The basic steps 

of our qualified-immunity inquiry are well-known: a plaintiff seeking to defeat 

qualified immunity must show: ‘(1) that the official violated a statutory or 

constitutional right, and (2) that the right was “clearly established” at the time 

of the challenged conduct.’”70

As we have already concluded that Erin sufficiently alleged violations of 

her right to be free from unreasonable seizure and excessive force, the 

remaining question for qualified immunity purposes is whether those rights 

were clearly established.

“A clearly established right is one that is ‘sufficiently clear that every 

reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that 

right.’”71 “This inquiry ‘does not require a case directly on point, but existing 

precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond 

debate.’”72 “The dispositive question is whether the violative nature of 

particular conduct is clearly established. This inquiry must be undertaken in 

 

68 Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305, 308 (2015) (quoting Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 

223, 231 (2009)); accord Glenn, 242 F.3d at 312.

69 Club Retro, 568 F.3d at 194.

70 Morgan v. Swanson, 659 F.3d 359, 371 (5th Cir. 2011) (quoting Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 

563 U.S. 731, 735 (2011)).

71 Lincoln, 855 F.3d at 301 (quoting Reichle v. Howards, 566 U.S. 658 (2012)). 

72 Id. (quoting al-Kidd, 563 U.S. at 741).

 Case: 16-10856 Document: 00514217795 Page: 17 Date Filed: 10/31/2017
No. 16-10856

18

light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad general proposition.”73

“The central concept [of the test] is that of fair warning: The law can be clearly 

established despite notable factual distinctions between the precedents relied 

on and the cases then before the Court, so long as the prior decisions gave 

reasonable warning that the conduct then at issue violated constitutional 

rights.”74

The district court found that Erin did not overcome Turner’s qualified 

immunity defense, reasoning:

Plaintiffs have not cited any authority to establish that every 

reasonable officer would have known that he could not detain a 

witness for a period of approximately two hours while an 

investigation was underway . . . Nor have they shown that 

Turner’s actions in removing Erin from the area where medical 

personnel were treating her injured father was clearly 

unreasonable and that every officer would have known so. 

1.

Erin avers that “[n]o reasonable officer could have believed that there 

was probable cause to detain, handcuff, or arrest Erin Lincoln.” Erin’s 

argument is twofold: first, that Turner had no probable cause to arrest her 

under Texas Penal Code § 38.15 for “interference with public duties” because 

her conduct fell within a clearly established “speech only” exception, and 

second, that it is clearly established that “a person cannot be taken into custody

for [approximately two hours] simply for being a witness to an event, 

particularly where the individual was taken into custody forcefully . . . without 

ever being questioned.”

Turner responds first by arguing that Erin has waived any argument 

that the “speech only” exception applies here. Then he attempts to distinguish 

 

73 Mullenix, 136 S. Ct. at 308 (internal quotation marks omitted). 

74 Flores, 381 F.3d at 399–400 (internal quotation marks omitted).

 Case: 16-10856 Document: 00514217795 Page: 18 Date Filed: 10/31/2017
No. 16-10856

19

two cases that the plaintiff relied on, noting that neither case “involves a 

witness to a police shooting in which she was the only person with the suspect 

before the shooting, interfered with police attempts to communicate with the 

suspect, and was standing next to the suspect when he threatened police and 

was shot.” Finally, Turner points to Walker,75 where the Tenth Circuit found 

that there was no clearly established law prohibiting a ninety-minute 

detention of two witnesses to a police shooting, and asserts that we should 

reach the same conclusion here.

The district court held that plaintiffs did not cite clearly established law 

establishing that an officer cannot “detain a witness for a period of 

approximately two hours while an investigation was underway,” although the 

parties have also consistently addressed Erin’s detention as a potential 

suspect.76 The reality may be somewhere in between. Turner seized Erin in the 

aftermath of a police shooting resulting from a SWAT team deployment. Even 

on Erin’s account, the scene was tense, and the officers were acting with 

incomplete information. In these circumstances, Turner may have been 

entitled to detain Erin for some amount of time to determine her role in the 

situation. As we explained, Turner exceeded this authority when he 

handcuffed Erin and detained her in the back of a police car for two hours. In 

doing so, Turner violated Erin’s constitutional rights.

Yet we are not persuaded that “every reasonable official would have 

understood that what he is doing violates that right.”77 At this stage, Erin has 

 

75 451 F.3d at 1144.

76 For example, Turner’s brief claims that “Erin did not adequately plead facts showing 

that Officer Turner could not reasonably detain her as a suspect or a material witness after 

John was shot.” Indeed, Turner’s entire argument on Erin’s failure to state a claim for 

unlawful detention focuses on whether he had the requisite reasonable suspicion for an 

investigatory stop, though he does make a passing reference to the fact that “if nothing else, 

she was a material witness.” 

77 Lincoln, 855 F.3d at 301 (quoting Reichle v. Howards, 566 U.S. 658 (2012)).

 Case: 16-10856 Document: 00514217795 Page: 19 Date Filed: 10/31/2017
No. 16-10856

20

the burden to demonstrate that the law was clearly established in this area on 

the date of the incident.78 She relies primarily on Dunaway v. New York79 and 

Davis v. Mississippi,80 claiming that these cases demonstrate that Turner 

needed probable cause to detain Erin.

These cases are insufficient to clearly establish that Turner’s conduct 

violated her Fourth Amendment rights. In Dunaway, police officers “pick[ed] 

up” a suspect, placed him in a police car, transported him to a police station, 

and detained him there for an interrogation.81 The Supreme Court found that

Dunaway’s detention “was in important respects indistinguishable from a 

traditional arrest,” and therefore required probable cause.82 Dunaway shows 

that an officer cannot escape the Fourth Amendment’s requirements merely by 

relabeling an arrest.83 Yet Dunaway differs in important ways from the instant 

case. In Dunaway, the police went to one location, found the suspect, and then 

brought him to the police station to interrogate him. Here, Erin was detained 

at a crime scene in the immediate aftermath of a police shooting. She was 

detained for two hours in a police car that remained on-site during that time

as the officers were sorting out what had just happened.84 Davis v. Mississippi 

is similarly inapt. In that case, the Supreme Court held that probable cause 

was required to detain a suspect at a police station in order to obtain his 

 

78 Club Retro, 568 F.3d at 194. See also Cass v. City of Abilene, 814 F.3d 721, 732–33 

(5th Cir. 2016). 

79 442 U.S. 200 (1979). 

80 394 U.S. 721 (1969). 

81 Dunaway, 442 U.S. at 203. 

82 Id. at 212. 

83 Specifically, the Court held “that detention for custodial interrogation—regardless 

of its label—intrudes so severely on interests protected by the Fourth Amendment as 

necessarily to trigger the traditional safeguards against illegal arrest.” Id. at 216 (emphasis 

added).

84 While Erin was subsequently taken into the police station for interrogation, Lincoln, 

855 F.3d at 300, the complaint does not allege that Turner was involved in that detention nor 

that he knew it would take place. Thus, Erin’s transportation to the police station is not 

relevant to the claims against Turner. 

 Case: 16-10856 Document: 00514217795 Page: 20 Date Filed: 10/31/2017
No. 16-10856

21

fingerprints where “no attempt was made . . . to employ procedures which 

might comply with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment.”85 The 

circumstances in Davis are readily distinguishable from the facts alleged here. 

Qualified immunity does not operate at a high level of generality. 

Otherwise, “[p]laintiffs would be able to convert the rule of qualified immunity 

. . . into a rule of virtually unqualified liability simply by alleging violation of 

extremely abstract rights.”86 Davis and Dunaway put officers on notice that 

probable cause may be required even where an interaction is not labeled an 

arrest, and Lidster warns officers that the Fourth Amendment applies even in 

a brief, information-gathering stop. However, none of those cases clearly 

established that a law enforcement officer could not detain a witness to a police 

shooting for these two hours while a SWAT team sorted out the scene, at the 

least when the witness was standing beside a person when the police shot him. 

Thus, we find that Erin has not shown that the contours of the right were so 

clearly established that “a reasonable official would understand that what he 

is doing violates that right.”87

Because we find it was not clearly established that Turner needed 

probable cause to detain Erin, we need not wade into whether the “speech only” 

exception to Texas Penal Code § 38.15 was clearly established, nor whether 

Erin waived such an argument below. 

Finally, we note that there may well be an emerging trend toward 

holding it unreasonable to detain a police shooting witness for an extended 

period of time, absent either reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe 

that a crime has been committed.88 While we may look to other circuits to find 

 

85 Davis, 394 U.S. at 728. 

86 Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 639 (1987). 

87 Id. at 640. 

88 See Walker, 451 F.3d at 1151; Maxwell, 708 F.3d at 1084. 

 Case: 16-10856 Document: 00514217795 Page: 21 Date Filed: 10/31/2017
No. 16-10856

22

clearly established law, we must consider “the overall weight” of such 

authority.89 A “trend” alone is just that. As of December 2013, only two circuits 

had weighed in on the “contours of the right.” These cases alone do not provide 

sufficient authority to find that the law was clearly established. This 

conclusion is bolstered by the fact that the Tenth Circuit itself found no “clearly 

established weight of authority from other courts,”90 and the Ninth Circuit 

relied on intra-circuit precedent to find clearly established law.91

2.

Turning to Erin’s excessive force claim, Turner argues that “Erin cites 

no case law to show that no reasonable officer would have thought the means 

by which Officer Turner seized her was constitutional.” Although Erin

identifies the second step in the qualified immunity analysis, it is not clear 

that her contention was that the right to be free from excessive force was 

clearly established in this case. Instead, she suggests that her allegations lead 

to the conclusion that physically removing Erin in the manner that Turner did 

was unreasonable, and that her injuries sustain her claim. However, these are 

arguments that feed into the first step of the qualified immunity analysis—

whether there was a constitutional violation. Accordingly, Erin waived 

argument as to the clearly established law prong and thus cannot overcome 

qualified immunity.92 Regardless, we cannot on this record conclude that Erin

 

89 See Melear v. Spears, 862 F.2d 1177, 1184 n.8 (5th Cir. 1989) (“Relying solely on 

Fifth Circuit and Supreme Court cases, for example, would be excessively formalistic, but 

they will loom large in our inquiries.”). 

90 Walker, 451 F.3d at 1151. 

91 Maxwell, 708 F.3d at 1083–84. 

92 See McIntosh v. Partridge, 540 F.3d 315, 325 n.12 (5th Cir. 2008) (“McIntosh 

occasionally mentions an ‘equal protection’ claim in conjunction with his due process claim, 

but this claim is inadequately briefed and is hence waived.”); United States v. Scroggins, 599 

F.3d 433, 446 (5th Cir. 2010) (“It is not enough to merely mention or allude to a legal theory.”); 

FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(8)(A) (argument on appeal must contain “contentions and the reasons 

for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant 

relies.”).

 Case: 16-10856 Document: 00514217795 Page: 22 Date Filed: 10/31/2017
No. 16-10856

23

could overcome qualified immunity on her excessive force claim given the lack 

of guiding precedent that shows the force used in this particular situation was 

“clearly unreasonable.”93

III.

In sum, although Erin stated a plausible claim for relief on both claims, 

we AFFIRM the district court’s grant of qualified immunity to Turner and its 

dismissal of the claims. 

 

93 Freeman, 483 F.3d at 416.

 Case: 16-10856 Document: 00514217795 Page: 23 Date Filed: 10/31/2017