Opinion ID: 772158
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Nature and Quality of the Intrusion

Text: 45 Here, the district court concluded that the severity of the intrusion upon the arrestees' personal integrity was minimal because it did not involve the threat of deadly force or even . . . a significant level of physical force. Rather the force used was merely the infliction of transient pain without significant risk of physical injury. We disagree with this characterization of the intrusion. 46 Although the absence of deadly force or physical blows can mean that a intrusion on an arrestee is less significant than most claims of force, Forrester, 25 F.3d at 807, that fact alone is not dispositive in excessive force cases. Under Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, the law is well settled that a plaintiff may recover  `nominal damages without proof of actual injury'  for unreasonable intrusions on one's bodily integrity. Larez, 946 F.2d at 640 (quoting Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S.247, 266 (1978) (holding nominal damages are available under 42 U.S.C. S 1983)). Indeed, in Wilks v. Reyes, 5 F.3d 412 (9th Cir. 1993), we expressly rejected the Fifth Circuit's requirement that a plaintiff show significant injury to establish an excessive force claim under the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 416 (The law of this circuit entitles a plaintiff to an award of nominal damages if the defendant violated the plaintiff's constitutional right . . . even if the plaintiff suffered no actual damage. (emphasis added)). Thus here, the district court erred in focusing on the purported absence of evidence of a significant risk of physical injury from the use of pepper spray. Under Graham and Forrester , whether the use of force poses a risk of permanent or significant injury is a factor to be considered in evaluating the need for the force used in a particular case -but it is certainly not dispositive. 47 Moreover, the evidence in the record does not establish that the use of pepper spray here constituted a minimal intrusion on the protesters' bodily integrity as a matter of law. The evidence suggests that the protesters suffered excruciating pain when the OC was applied to their eyelids with a Qtip -and even more so when sprayed into their faces in full blasts from inches away. In fact, the Humboldt County Sheriff's deputy in charge of chemical agent training testified that pepper spray is designed to cause intense pain, a burning sensation that causes mucus to come out of the nose, an involuntary closing of the eyes, a gagging reflex, and temporary paralysis of the larynx. He also testified that its known psychological effects are disorientation, anxiety, and panic. On this record, a rational juror could readily conclude that the intrusion suffered was more than minimal. 7 48 Indeed, our opinion in Forrester suggests that the uncontrollable nature of the pain caused by pepper spray distinguishes it from the pain compliance technique  challenged in that case. Forrester held that sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding that the use of OPNs was reasonable under the circumstances. OPNs are two sticks of wood connected at one end by a cord, 25 F.3d at 805, which are used to grip a resisting arrestee's wrist in a progressively tighter and more painful manner until the arrestee ceases resisting. See id. at 808 n.5. In Forrester, the police used OPNs on hundreds of Operation Rescue demonstrators who were attempting to shut down the operations of an abortion clinic by blocking access to the facility. See id. at 805, 807. 8 In explaining the nature of the force used in Forrester, we stated: 49 Unlike the use of a lighted cigarette, which would create immediate and searing pain, the discomfort produced by the OPNs was gradual in nature. The videotape (which was seen by the jurors) illustrates that the police first applied a loose grip and then pro gressively tightened their hold until the demonstrators stood and ceased resistance. The moment the demonstrators complied, the police released the OPNs. 50 Id. at 808 n.5. Although the use of OPNs in Forrester caused varying degrees of injury . . . including bruises, a pinched nerve, and one broken wrist, we upheld the jury's verdict in part because: Each officer had the discretion to use force or not, and if deciding to do so, how much force to apply. Id. at 808. 51 Here, the videotape evidence reveals that the application of the pepper spray with a Q-tip and then by short full blasts created immediate and searing pain that could not be moderated by the officers at their discretion or terminated by them the moment the protesters complied with their demands. According to the defendants, the only way to relieve the pain caused by pepper spray is to flush it out thoroughlywith water. Police training tapes recommend using a free-flowing hose to wash the victim's face or the use of a big bucket of water in which the victim can actually stick [his or her] face down into to get relief. But here, the officers offered only to spray water in short bursts onto the protesters' faces from hand-held plastic bottles, which the evidence suggests may have actually exacerbated the pain by causing the OC to run into the protesters' noses and mouths rather than flushing it out. Moreover, whether water was offered at all for this purpose during each protest is disputed. Yet the district court's ruling fails to mention this evidence, let alone view it in a light most favorable to the plaintiffs as the nonmoving parties. 9 52 Forrester did not hold that pain compliance techniques are constitutionally permissible as a matter of law.  25 F.3d at 809 (Kleinfeld, J., dissenting). Nor did it establish a rule of qualified immunity for the use of pain compliance techniques to arrest passively resisting misdemeanants. Forrester simply held that whether the use of OPNs as a pain compliance technique constituted excessive force was a question of fact that was properly submitted to the jury for its decision. Similarly, we hold here that whether the use of pepper spray in this case constituted excessive force is a question of fact that should have been submitted to a jury for its decision.