Opinion ID: 6349389
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Jones’s Pistol-Whip

Text: Wade argues that Jones violated his Fourth Amendment rights when he struck Wade in the head with his pistol. Much like the factors we weigh when evaluating a use of deadly force, we consider these factors when evaluating any other use of force: (1) the severity of the suspect’s crime, (2) whether the suspect poses an immediate threat of harm to others, (3) whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest or trying to flee, (4) the need for the use of force, (5) the relationship between the need for force and the amount of force used, and (6) how much injury was inflicted. See USCA11 Case: 18-12371 Date Filed: 06/13/2022 Page: 10 of 58 10 Opinion of the Court 18-12371 Mobley v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sherriff Dep’t, 783 F.3d 1347, 1353 (11th Cir. 2015) (per curiam). The “gratuitous use of force when a criminal suspect is not resisting arrest constitutes excessive force.” Hadley v. Gutierrez, 526 F.3d 1324, 1330 (11th Cir. 2008). After the shooting, Beach handcuffed Wade, removed the shotgun from the vehicle, and searched Wade for other weapons. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Wade, he no longer posed an immediate threat of harm to anyone at that point. He was slumped over the center console—unarmed and severely injured from three gunshot wounds—and Beach was holding him down. He was not actively resisting arrest or trying to flee. Even though Wade removed Beach’s hands from his head, he did so only after communicating that he could not breathe and needed to sit up so that blood would not fill his mouth. Because Jones was close enough to pistol-whip Wade right after he tried to sit up, a jury could reasonably infer that he was close enough to hear Wade say that he needed to sit up so that he could breathe. And regardless, striking Wade in the head with a pistol was disproportionate to any need to restrain Wade given his condition. Finally, the pistol-whip significantly injured Wade because it struck him in the head, chipping his tooth and cutting his face and mouth. Given the circumstances, Jones’s pistol-whip was an unreasonable, “gratuitous use of force” against a non-resisting suspect. See Hadley, 526 F.3d at 1330. Having determined that Jones’s pistol-whip violated Wade’s Fourth Amendment right to be free of excessive force, we turn to USCA11 Case: 18-12371 Date Filed: 06/13/2022 Page: 11 of 58 18-12371 Opinion of the Court 11 whether that right was clearly established at the time. Wade identifies three factually analogous cases. First, in Hadley, this court held that an officer was not entitled to qualified immunity when he punched the plaintiff while he was “handcuffed and not struggling or resisting” because “a handcuffed, non-resisting [suspect’s] right to be free from excessive force was clearly established in February 2002” and every reasonable officer would know that use of force was unconstitutional. 526 F.3d at 1330, 1333–34. Second, in Lee v. Ferraro, we held that an officer used excessive force by slamming an arrestee’s head against a car when she was secured in handcuffs because “[o]nce an arrestee has been fully secured, such force is wholly unnecessary to any legitimate law enforcement purpose.” 284 F.3d 1188, 1198–99 (11th Cir. 2002). And finally, in Slicker v. Jackson, this court held that officers were not entitled to qualified immunity where they hit the plaintiff’s head on the pavement and kicked him because he “was handcuffed and did not resist, attempt to flee, or struggle with the officers in any way.” 215 F.3d 1225, 1233 (11th Cir. 2000). The district court distinguished these cases by assuming that Wade was resisting or being uncooperative when he removed Beach’s hands from his head. In so doing, the district court failed to view the facts in the light most favorable to Wade and draw reasonable inferences in his favor. Viewing the facts through the appropriate lens, Jones could not have reasonably believed that Wade was resisting when he tried to sit up after communicating that he needed to do so to breathe. And because “a handcuffed, non-resisting [suspect’s] right to be free from excessive force was clearly USCA11 Case: 18-12371 Date Filed: 06/13/2022 Page: 12 of 58 12 Opinion of the Court 18-12371 established” at the time, see Hadley, 526 F.3d at 1333, Jones is not entitled to qualified immunity on Wade’s excessive force claim against him.