Opinion ID: 772158
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Safety of Others

Text: 66 Under our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, the most important single element in the Graham analysis is whether the suspect pose[d] an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others. Chew, 27 F.3d at 1441. Here, the protesters were nonviolent and unarmed. Most were young women, two of whom were minors; none were physically menacing. They posed no safety threat to themselves, the officers, or the public at large. 67 Unlike the protesters in Forrester, the protesters here did not block access to and from a medical clinic, `preventing patients, as well as physicians and medical staff, from entering the clinic to render or receive medical or counseling services.'  25 F.3d at 805 n.1 (quoting Bray, 506 U.S. at 309). Nor did they behave threateningly toward the police. To the contrary, the protesters repeatedly pleaded with the officers not to use the pepper spray because they posed no danger to anyone. Finally, the protesters posed no danger to themselves. Cf. Monday v. Oullette, 118 F.3d 1099 (6th Cir. 1997) (holding that the use of pepper spray to thwart a suicide attempt of a mentally ill man who refused treatment was reasonable). Because the protesters' conduct posed no danger to themselves or others, a reasonable fact finder could conclude that using pepper spray to effect their arrests bore no reasonable relation to the need for force. Koch , 96 F.3d at 1304. 68