Opinion ID: 3061741
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Excessive Force (Counts 2 and 5)

Text: German next claims the district court erred in granting the Defendants qualified immunity on his unnecessary and excessive use of force claims. When evaluating an excessive force claim, courts analyze the particular facts of each 5 case to “determine whether the force used was justified under the totality of the circumstances.” Garczynski, 573 F.3d at 1166 (citing Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396, 109 S. Ct. 1865, 1872 (1989)). Under Graham, the factors used to determine reasonableness include “the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.” Graham, 490 U.S. at 396, 109 S. Ct. at 1872. “[T]he reasonableness inquiry in an excessive force case is an objective one: the question is whether the officers’ actions are objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation.” Garczynski, 573 F.3d at 1166-67 (internal quotation marks omitted). German appears to claim that two actions in particular taken by the Defendants constituted unnecessary or excessive force. First, he objects to Defendant Sosa’s application of force by “put[ting] his hand around German’s throat and slamm[ing] him against the car.” Second, he objects to Defendant Paparo’s use of a taser. We agree with the district court that neither application of force violated any clearly established right, and that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on German’s unnecessary or excessive force claims. First, Defendant Sosa did not use excessive force when he attempted to 6 prevent German from swallowing what Sosa believed to be cannabis. It is constitutional for officers recognizing an attempt to swallow and destroy what appears to be narcotics to hold the suspect’s throat and attempt to pry open the suspect’s mouth by placing pressure against his jaw and nose. See Espinoza v. United States, 278 F.2d 802, 804 (5th Cir. 1960).1 As we have already determined, German has provided no evidence that Sosa’s belief that German was attempting to swallow cannabis was unreasonable; therefore, Sosa did not violate a clearly established right in his use of force to attempt to stop German from swallowing the evidence. Second, we also cannot say that Defendant Paparo violated a clearly established right when he tased German. No case, statute, or principle within the Constitution provides the necessary precedent to clearly establish the rights German claims were violated by the Paparo’s use of a taser. Thus, qualified immunity applies in this case unless German can show that the Defendants’ actions were so egregious and unacceptable so as to have blatantly violated the Constitution. See Lewis, 561 F.3d at 1292. This standard is only met when “every reasonable officer would conclude that the excessive force used was plainly 1 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), we adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to September 30, 1981. 7 unlawful.” Id. (citing Priester v. City of Riviera Beach, Fla., 208 F.3d 919, 92627 (11th Cir. 2000)). This standard is not met in this case. As discussed above, the officers believed German was attempting to destroy evidence, and that he was resisting orders and attempting to flee or resist arrest by jumping in the car. We agree with the district court that it would not be clear to every reasonable officer that the force used was excessive under the circumstances.2 Therefore, the Defendants did not violate a constitutional right that was clearly established when they tased German. Accordingly, the district court was correct to grant the Defendants qualified immunity on German’s unnecessary and excessive force claims.