Opinion ID: 6330211
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Claim Against Officer Ziegler

Text: There is no dispute that Officer Ziegler employed a takedown maneuver and accordingly used physical force to bring Plaintiff to the ground. Ziegler engaged in the maneuver only after Plaintiff failed to comply with a number of the officer’s verbal orders to show his hands, put down his beer, and put his hands behind his back. But because the orders were given in rapid succession over the course of only thirty seconds, it was not clear whether Plaintiff understood or was given sufficient time or opportunity to comply with some of the orders before he was thrown to the ground. Consequently, there are genuine issues of material fact regarding the extent of No. 21-1371 LaPlante v. City of Battle Creek, Mich., et al. Page 10 Plaintiff’s cooperation, the degree of Ziegler’s subsequent force, and the reasonableness of the force employed. The police report states that the officers found probable cause to arrest LaPlante for: (1) resisting and obstructing the police; (2) resisting and obstructing justice; (3) driving with a suspended license; and (4) operating a vehicle under the influence of liquor. Plaintiff pleaded guilty to a felony charge of operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and a high misdemeanor charge of attempted obstruction of a police officer. However, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff requires us to look at the nature and severity of Plaintiff’s offense at the time that Officer Ziegler employed the takedown maneuver. See Gaddis, 364 F.3d at 774. At that point, Ziegler only had probable cause to arrest Plaintiff for the misdemeanor offense of operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol. See Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.625(7)(a). This offense is only moderately severe from the perspective of “a reasonable officer on the scene.” Graham, 490 U.S. at 396; Gaddis, 364 F.3d at 774. Indeed, there is no allegation that Plaintiff’s offense was violent or otherwise resulted in any injuries. While the video shows that Plaintiff moved his arms forward ahead of the takedown maneuver, Officer Ziegler does not allege that Plaintiff assaulted him or made any offensive gestures toward him.10 And although the interaction occurred on a dark street early in the morning before either officer could pat down the suspects or call for backup, a reasonable jury could determine that Plaintiff’s failure to promptly obey all of Officer Ziegler’s orders did not place Ziegler in such a dangerous situation that a forceful takedown maneuver was reasonable. There are also genuine disputes of fact regarding whether Plaintiff resisted arrest by taking actions that prevented Officer Ziegler from handcuffing him. There is no question that Plaintiff failed to comply with several of Officer Ziegler’s orders and moved his hands in the air just as Ziegler was about to handcuff him; however, Plaintiff’s behavior––particularly considering the disputes of fact that the video fails to clarify––does not necessarily amount to 10 Officer Ziegler did claim that Plaintiff’s movements made him worry that Plaintiff might flee or possibly injure him. (Police Report, R. 60-7, Ex. G, Page ID # 623.) However, the parties dispute whether Plaintiff’s behavior was provoked by Ziegler due to his alleged aggressive tactics, and whether Ziegler gave Plaintiff sufficient opportunity to comply when he yelled out to Plaintiff a long list of orders over the course of only thirty seconds. See supra notes 2, 4, 6–8. No. 21-1371 LaPlante v. City of Battle Creek, Mich., et al. Page 11 active resistance. Woodcock v. City of Bowling Green, 679 F. App’x 419, 423 (6th Cir. 2017) (“We have held that mere noncompliance is not active resistance.”) (citing Goodwin v. City of Painesville, 781 F.3d 314, 323–24 (6th Cir. 2015); see supra notes 2, 4, 6–8. In fact, Plaintiff claims that he had not been told that he was being arrested at this point of the interaction. The parties dispute whether Plaintiff’s actions amounted to resistance given that, as Plaintiff emphasizes, placing one’s hands in the air is a “universal and widely recognized sign of surrender.” (Compare Appellee’s Br. 6 with Appellants’ Br. 2–4.) According to Defendants, Plaintiff’s raised hands were an act of resistance rather than an indication that he had surrendered. But the fact that a suspect does not immediately surrender does not inherently mean that he is resisting. See Woodcock, 679 F. App’x at 423. Indeed, the district court emphasized that “hands in the air . . . renders the person whose hands are in the air vulnerable to attack, to aggressive action and so forth.” (Summ. J. Hr’g Tr., R. 65, Page ID # 757 (emphasis added).) The court stated that it had a “hard time accepting that . . . hands in the air is a position of threat.” (Id.) To be sure, we must (1) assess an officer’s use of force “from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight,” Graham, 490 U.S. at 396, and (2) defer to the clear, unaltered depiction of the facts displayed in the video, Scott, 550 U.S. at 378. But in this case, we cannot completely determine the nature of the interaction or the communications between Plaintiff and Officer Ziegler from the video alone. That task is best left to a jury. Plaintiff and the district court rightly compare this case to our opinion in Baker v. City of Hamilton, 471 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 2006). In that case, we held that qualified immunity is inappropriate where there is a dispute regarding whether a suspect stopped and raised his hands in the air during a police encounter, and a reasonable jury could conclude that the suspect’s movements indicated that he had surrendered. Id. at 607–08. This case is factually analogous to Baker in various respects, even considering the fact that, unlike in Baker, the record includes a video depicting the moment when Plaintiff raised his hands in the air ahead of the takedown maneuver. (Compare Appellee’s Br. 28 (citing to the dashcam footage) with id. at 603 (“What happened . . . is disputed by the parties and is the basis of [Plaintiff]’s complaint.”).) That is No. 21-1371 LaPlante v. City of Battle Creek, Mich., et al. Page 12 because a reasonable jury could view the video and determine that Plaintiff surrendered when he raised his hands. Importantly, we have determined that the use of a takedown maneuver, in a variety of scenarios, can amount to excessive force. See, e.g., Harris v. City of Circleville, 583 F.3d 356, 365–66 (6th Cir. 2009) (denying qualified immunity where officers employed a takedown maneuver after the suspect was already cuffed within the police station and the officers subsequently struck the suspect while pushing his handcuffed hands over his head, kicked him in the ribs, and referred to him using racist slurs); McCaig v. Raber, 515 F. App’x 551, 555 (6th Cir. 2013) (concluding that a reasonable jury could find that an officer’s use of a takedown maneuver was not objectionably reasonable where a suspect “made no aggressive gestures or statements, attempted to cooperate, offered no resistance, and stated that he would ‘go easy’”); Pershell v. Cook, 430 F. App’x 410, 415 (6th Cir. 2011) (denying qualified immunity where, after performing a leg sweep and handcuffing a suspect, officers proceeded to strike the suspect three times, causing him to lose consciousness and sustain a hip fracture); Lawler v. City of Taylor, 268 F. App’x 384, 387 (6th Cir. 2008) (denying qualified immunity where video footage “would permit a jury to conclude that [an officer]’s use of force in throwing [a suspect] to the floor [of the booking room of a police station] was disproportionate,” where the suspect had merely insulted an officer, refused to comply with orders, and continually raised his hand); Meirthew v. Amore, 417 F. App’x 494, 497–98 (6th Cir. 2011) (denying qualified immunity where the officer used an arm-bar takedown in a police station booking room, where the suspect was unarmed, handcuffed, and surrounded by officers). Considering the factors outlined by the relevant caselaw, this case presents genuine disputes as to Officer Ziegler’s use of force, both as Ziegler engaged in the takedown maneuver and as he proceeded to “put pressure on [Plaintiff’s] back, upper body, arms, and the side of his head.” (Appellee’s Br. 14); McCaig, 515 F. App’x at 555. Where, as here, the available video is not clear as to those factors, see supra notes 2, 4, 6–8, we must reject Ziegler’s qualified immunity defense because a reasonable jury could find that his use of force violated Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights. Godawa, 798 F.3d at 463, 467. No. 21-1371 LaPlante v. City of Battle Creek, Mich., et al. Page 13