United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
Argued February 14, 2011 Decided May 17, 2011
No. 10-5078
MARY BROOKE OBERWETTER,
APPELLANT
v.
KENNETH HILLIARD, U.S. PARK POLICE, AND KENNETH LEE
SALAZAR, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR,
APPELLEES
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia
(No. 1:09-cv-00588)
Alan Gura argued the cause for appellant. With him on
the briefs was Candice N. Hance.
Harry B. Roback, Assistant U.S. Attorney, argued the
cause for appellees. With him on the brief were Ronald C.
Machen Jr., U.S. Attorney, and R. Craig Lawrence, Assistant
U.S. Attorney.
Before: ROGERS, TATEL, and GRIFFITH, Circuit Judges.
Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge GRIFFITH.
2
GRIFFITH, Circuit Judge: Late on the eve of the 265th
birthday of Thomas Jefferson—Author of the Declaration of
American Independence, of the Statute of Virginia for
Religious Freedom, and Father of the University of
Virginia—Officer Kenneth Hilliard of the United States Park
Police arrested plaintiff Mary Brooke Oberwetter when she
refused to stop what she describes as “silent expressive
dancing” inside the Jefferson Memorial. She filed suit against
Hilliard and the government alleging violations of her First
and Fourth Amendment rights. The district court dismissed
her complaint. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
I
At quarter to midnight on April 12, 2008, Oberwetter and
seventeen friends entered the Jefferson Memorial to
“celebrate and honor the former President . . . by ushering in
his birthday with silent dance.”1 Appellant’s Br. 4. According
to Oberwetter, the dancing expressed admiration for Mr.
Jefferson’s political legacy. “In the individualist spirit for
which Jefferson is known, the dancers danced for the most
part by themselves, in place, each listening to his or her music
on headphones.” Compl. ¶ 13. The dancing took place inside
the Memorial, a circular structure with a domed roof and
colonnaded perimeter. “Apart from [Oberwetter] and her
associates, and employees of the National Park Service, there
1
For his part, Mr. Jefferson is on record discouraging celebration of
his birthday. “On Mr. Jefferson’s accession to the Presidency
[visitors] had waited on him, requesting to be informed, which was
his birthday, as they wished to celebrate it with proper respect. ‘The
only birthday I ever commemorate,’ replied he, ‘is that of our
Independence, the Fourth of July.’” THE FIRST FORTY YEARS OF
WASHINGTON SOCIETY 398 (Gaillard Hunt ed., Scribner’s Sons
1906).
3
were very few visitors to the Jefferson Memorial at the time
of the dancing.” Id. ¶ 15.
A group of United States Park Police officers ordered the
dancers to disperse. Oberwetter states that she did not
immediately comply but removed a headphone from one ear
and asked Officer Hilliard “why he was ordering her to leave,
and what law she was violating.” Id. ¶ 18. Hilliard offered no
explanation, but continued to insist that she stop dancing and
leave immediately. Rather than complying, Oberwetter again
asked Hilliard to “provide a lawful reason why she needed to
do so,” but he “refused to offer any reason whatsoever for his
demands, and instead arrested [her].” Id. ¶ 19. Oberwetter
further alleges that Hilliard “used more force than was
necessary . . . , ripping apart her earbud, shoving her against a
pillar, and violently twisting her arm.” Id. ¶ 21. The Park
Police took her into custody for some five hours of
processing, after which they cited her for “[i]nterfering with
an agency function” in violation of 36 C.F.R. § 2.32
(prohibiting “[t]hreatening, resisting, intimidating, or
intentionally interfering with a government employee or agent
engaged in an official duty, or on account of the performance
of an official duty”).
Three days later, Park Police officers visited
Oberwetter’s home and gave her two superseding citations—
one for “interfering with an agency function,” and another for
“[d]emonstrating without a permit” in violation of the
National Park Service Regulations. See 36 C.F.R.
§ 7.96(g)(3)(ii)(C). On May 21, 2008, Oberwetter appeared
before the district court to defend the charges. According to
her complaint, the court found that “the prosecution . . . was
not properly before the Court and advised . . . Hilliard that if
he wished to proceed, he would have to properly prepare the
4
matter for hearing.” Compl. ¶ 25. The Park Police have not
pressed the matter since.
Oberwetter subsequently filed this suit, arguing that
Hilliard’s enforcement of the Park Service Regulations to
prohibit her expressive dancing violated her First Amendment
rights to free speech and assembly. She sought injunctive and
declaratory relief, stating that she “would again silently dance
at the Jefferson Memorial to commemorate Thomas
Jefferson’s birthday, by herself, and with other like-minded
people, but refrains from doing so because she reasonably
fears arrest, prosecution, fine, and/or incarceration if she were
to do so again.” Id. ¶ 26. She also brought three Bivens claims
for money damages against Hilliard in his personal capacity,
alleging violations of her First and Fourth Amendment rights.
The district court dismissed Oberwetter’s complaint for
failure to state a claim, holding that she was lawfully arrested
for violating the reasonable regulations that govern the
Jefferson Memorial, a nonpublic forum reserved for the
tranquil commemoration of Mr. Jefferson’s legacy.
Oberwetter v. Hilliard, 680 F. Supp. 2d 152 (D.D.C. 2010).
The court further held that Hilliard had probable cause to
make the arrest, and that he used reasonable force to subdue
Oberwetter without injury after she twice refused his lawful
orders. We take jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291,
reviewing the district court’s dismissal de novo. See Muir v.
Navy Fed. Credit Union, 529 F.3d 1100, 1108 (D.C. Cir.
2008). In reviewing a dismissal for failure to state a claim,
“we must treat the complaint’s factual allegations as true,
must grant [the] plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable
inferences from the facts alleged, and may uphold the
dismissal only if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can
prove no set of facts in support of [her] claim which would
5
entitle [her] to relief.” Shea v. Rice, 409 F.3d 448, 450 n.2
(D.C. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).
II
As a threshold matter, Oberwetter contends that the
National Park Service misread its own regulations in treating
her expressive dancing as unlawful. Ordinarily, we “accord an
agency’s interpretation of its own regulations a high level of
deference, accepting it unless it is plainly wrong.” Howmet
Corp. v. EPA, 614 F.3d 544, 549 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (internal
quotation marks omitted). Here, however, because the Park
Service’s interpretation of its regulations could lead to
criminal sanctions against Oberwetter, our deference is
constrained by the need to ensure that she had fair warning.
See United States v. McGoff, 831 F.2d 1071, 1077 (D.C. Cir.
1987) (“In the criminal context, courts have traditionally
required greater clarity in draftsmanship than in civil contexts,
commensurate with the bedrock principle that in a free
country citizens who are potentially subject to criminal
sanctions should have clear notice of the behavior that may
cause sanctions to be visited upon them.”); see also Rollins
Envtl. Servs., Inc. v. EPA, 937 F.2d 649, 654 (D.C. Cir. 1991).
We are satisfied that the Regulations give fair notice that
expressive dancing is prohibited inside the Jefferson
Memorial.
The Regulations provide that, within the park areas of the
National Capital Region, “[d]emonstrations and special events
may be held only pursuant to a permit . . . .” 36 C.F.R.
§ 7.96(g)(2). “Demonstrations” include:
picketing, speechmaking, marching, holding vigils or
religious services and all other like forms of conduct
which involve the communication or expression of views
or grievances, engaged in by one or more persons, the
6
conduct of which has the effect, intent or propensity to
draw a crowd or onlookers. [The] term does not include
casual park use by visitors or tourists which does not
have an intent or propensity to attract a crowd or
onlookers.
Id.§ 7.96(g)(1)(i).2
Oberwetter argues that her silent expressive dancing was
not a demonstration because it was not “like” the enumerated
activities of “picketing, speechmaking, marching, [or] holding
vigils or religious services.” Id. § 7.96(g)(1)(i). Unlike those
examples, she argues, her expressive dancing was not an
“organized group activity in which a uniform message is
passionately conveyed.” Appellant’s Br. 15. She further
claims that her conduct falls within the exception for “casual
park use.” Id. Dancing silently in place while listening to
headphones, she says, is something that people do in the
course of ordinary activity—waiting for the bus, standing on
the sidewalk, etc.—and does not have the “effect, intent or
propensity to draw a crowd or onlookers.” 36 C.F.R.
§ 7.96(g)(1)(i).
The district court properly rejected Oberwetter’s
arguments. Under the Park Service Regulations, a
demonstration need not be an “organized group activity,” but
may consist of “one or more persons.” Id. Oberwetter’s
expressive dancing falls within the spectrum of examples of
prohibited activities, which range from “the boisterousness of
picketing or speechmaking to the quiet solicitude of a vigil.”
2
On January 3, 2011, the Park Service issued a notice of proposed
rulemaking that “would revise the definition of demonstration at 36
C.F.R. 7.96(g)(1)(i) by eliminating the term ‘intent or propensity’
where it appears in the definition and replace it with ‘reasonably
likely.’” 76 Fed. Reg. 57, 57.
7
Oberwetter, 680 F. Supp. 2d at 161. Although silent,
Oberwetter’s dancing was a conspicuous expressive act with a
propensity to draw onlookers. True, it occurred close to
midnight on a weekend, making it less likely that a crowd
would gather. But the question is not whether her dancing was
likely to attract attention at that particular time. As with the
other prohibited activities of “picketing, speechmaking,
marching, [and] holding vigils or religious services,”
expressive dancing might not draw an audience when nobody
is around. But the conduct is nonetheless prohibited because it
stands out as a type of performance, creating its own center of
attention and distracting from the atmosphere of solemn
commemoration that the Regulations are designed to preserve.
Taking another tack, Oberwetter argues that even if she
engaged in a demonstration inside the Memorial, she was free
to do so because her group of silent dancers was never larger
than 18 people. The Regulations allow for groups of 25 or
fewer to demonstrate without a permit “provided that the
other conditions required for the issuance of a permit are
met.” 36 C.F.R. § 7.96(g)(2)(i) (emphasis omitted). She
admits, as she must, that the Regulations state that “[n]o
permits may be issued authorizing demonstrations or special
events in . . . [t]he Jefferson Memorial, which means the
circular portion of the Jefferson Memorial enclosed by the
outermost series of columns, and all portions on the same
levels or above the base of these columns, except for the
official annual commemorative Jefferson birthday ceremony.”
Id. § 7.96(g)(3)(ii). But, she argues, this is not a “condition”
required for the issuance of a permit. In her view, there are no
conditions at all for the issuance of a permit for
demonstrations inside the Memorial, and so groups of 25 or
fewer must be allowed to demonstrate there.
This argument can be readily rejected. As the district
court rightly observed, the much more natural reading of the
8
Regulations is that being outside of the Memorial is a required
condition for any demonstration, meaning that, aside from the
official birthday ceremony, no demonstrations of any size are
allowed inside the Memorial.
III
The heart of Oberwetter’s complaint is her claim that the
First Amendment protects her right to engage in silent
expressive dancing inside the Jefferson Memorial.3 Because
the First Amendment “affords protection to symbolic or
expressive conduct as well as to actual speech,” Virginia v.
Black, 538 U.S. 343, 358 (2003), there is no question that she
had the right to dance in order to express her admiration for
Mr. Jefferson. Of course she did. But the question this case
presents is whether she had the right to perform her dance
inside the Jefferson Memorial.
We analyze Oberwetter’s claim under the familiar
“public forum” doctrine, which divides government property
into three categories for purposes of First Amendment
analysis. The “traditional public forum” includes public areas
that have “by long tradition or by government fiat . . . been
devoted to assembly and debate.” Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry
Local Educators’ Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37, 45 (1983). The
government must respect the open character of these forums,
and can only impose speech restrictions that are “narrowly
tailored to serve a significant governmental interest.” Ward v.
Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989). Next is the
“limited public forum” or “designated public forum,” which
comprises “public property which the State has opened for
3
Because Oberwetter brings an as-applied rather than a facial
challenge, we do not address whether the Regulations could survive
a challenge on grounds of substantial overbreadth. See Wash. State
Grange v. Wash. State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442, 449 n.6
(2008).
9
use by the public as a place for expressive activity.” Perry,
460 U.S. at 45. Expressive activity in these forums may be
restricted to particular speakers or purposes. Third is the
“nonpublic forum,” which encompasses government property
that is “not by tradition or designation a forum for public
communication.” Id. at 46. Here the government “may reserve
the forum for its intended purposes, communicative or
otherwise, as long as the regulation on speech is reasonable
and not an effort to suppress expression merely because
public officials oppose the speaker’s view.” Id. This rule
recognizes that “[t]he State, no less than a private owner of
property, has power to preserve the property under its control
for the use to which it is lawfully dedicated.” Greer v. Spock,
424 U.S. 828, 836 (1976) (quoting Adderley v. Fla., 385 U.S.
39, 47 (1966)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
“The dispositive question is not what the forum is called,
but what purpose it serves, either by tradition or specific
designation.” Boardley v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 615 F.3d
508, 515 (D.C. Cir. 2010). We begin by analyzing the
property in this case “at a very high level of generality,”
adopting “a working presumption that sidewalks, streets and
parks are normally to be considered public forums.”
Henderson v. Lujan, 964 F.2d 1179, 1182 (D.C. Cir. 1992).
We then examine the history and characteristics of the
particular property at issue, mindful “that when government
has dedicated property to a use inconsistent with conventional
public assembly and debate . . . then the inconsistency
precludes classification as a public forum.” Id.
The district court properly concluded that the area inside
the Jefferson Memorial is a nonpublic forum. As a general
matter, the interior space of national memorials has not
traditionally “been used for purposes of assembly,
communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing
10
public questions.” Perry, 460 U.S. at 45 (quoting Hague v.
Comm. for Indus. Org., 307 U.S. 496, 515 (1939)) (internal
quotation marks omitted). National memorials are places of
public commemoration, not freewheeling forums for open
expression, and thus the government may reserve them for
purposes that preclude expressive activity. Oberwetter points
out that the Jefferson Memorial is located within the National
Park system, and that public parks are quintessential examples
of traditional public forums. See id. Even so, we have
recognized that our country’s many national parks are too vast
and variegated to be painted with a single brush for purposes
of forum analysis. “Presumably, many national parks include
areas—even large areas, such as a vast wilderness preserve—
which never have been dedicated to free expression and
public assembly, would be clearly incompatible with such
use, and would therefore be classified as nonpublic forums.”
Boardley, 615 F.3d at 515; see also Lederman v. United
States, 291 F.3d 36, 46 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (noting that “some
areas within a large public forum may be nonpublic if their
use is specialized”) (internal quotation marks omitted); Cmty.
for Creative Non-Violence v. Watt, 703 F.2d 586, 599 n.35
(D.C. Cir. 1983) (en banc) (plurality opinion) (observing that
the Park Service “need not treat the [National Mall] as a
monolithic whole”), rev’d sub nom. on other grounds, Clark
v. Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288 (1984).
In creating and maintaining the Jefferson Memorial in
particular, the government has dedicated a space with a
solemn commemorative purpose that is incompatible with the
full range of free expression that is permitted in public
forums.4 Oberwetter alleges that visitors to the Memorial
4
We are mindful that forum determinations are typically fact
intensive, and that we lack a factual record here because the district
court dismissed this case on the pleadings. We press ahead
11
regularly “talk loudly, make noise, [and] take and pose for
photographs,” Compl. ¶ 10, but none of this conduct rises to
the level of a conspicuous “demonstration.” For three-and-a-
half decades, the Park Service Regulations have sought to
“protect[] legitimate security and park value interests,
including the maintenance of an atmosphere of calm,
tranquility, and reverence in the vicinity of major memorials.”
41 Fed. Reg. 12,879, 12,880 (Mar. 29, 1976). The
Regulations specifically identify the interior of the Jefferson
Memorial as a place where visitors may not engage in
expressive activity that “has the effect, intent or propensity to
draw a crowd or onlookers.” 36 C.F.R. § 7.96(g)(1)(i).
Visitors to the Memorial interior must ascend a stairway,
traverse a portico, and pass a sign that says “Quiet / Respect
Please” before entering. The Park Police patrol the area, and
Oberwetter has pled no facts suggesting that they allow
visitors to engage in disruptive demonstrations. Having thus
created and maintained the Memorial as a commemorative
site, the government is under no obligation to open it up as a
stage for the roving dance troupes of the world—even those
celebrating Mr. Jefferson.
That the Memorial is open to the public does not alter its
status as a nonpublic forum. Visitors are not invited for
expressive purposes, but are free to enter only if they abide by
the rules that preserve the Memorial’s solemn atmosphere. As
the Supreme Court has observed, an area “is not transformed
into ‘public forum’ property merely because the public is
permitted to freely enter and leave the grounds at practically
all times.” United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171, 178 (1983).
The government conducts an official ceremony for Jefferson’s
nonetheless because the salient features of the Memorial are
“generally known within [our] territorial jurisdiction” and “not
subject to reasonable dispute.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b).
12
birthday inside the Memorial each year, but this is an instance
of government speech rather than an open invitation for
private speakers. It is of no moment that the Memorial was
built in 1943 but not regulated by the Park Service until 1976.
Oberwetter has made no allegation that the Memorial was
either a traditional public forum or designated public forum
before the Park Service’s regulation, see Oberwetter, 680 F.
Supp. 2d at 163, and we have made clear that a piece of
government property is not automatically a public forum
“merely because the government has for a time stayed its
hand” in imposing restrictions. Henderson, 964 F.2d at 1183.
Nor is this case like Grace, where the Supreme Court
held that the grounds surrounding the Supreme Court building
could not be deemed a nonpublic forum because there was
“no separation, no fence, and no indication whatever to
persons stepping from the street . . . that they [had] entered
some special type of enclave.” 461 U.S. at 179. The physical
characteristics of the Jefferson Memorial clearly delineate the
nonpublic forum. The ceiling dome sits atop a circular
colonnade, marking out a distinct memorial space. The clear
boundaries of the Memorial also distinguish it from the
restricted-speech zone in Henderson, which we struck down
in part because it extended far beyond the Vietnam Veterans
Memorial and encompassed public lawns and sidewalks that
appeared “indistinguishable from ordinary sidewalks used for
the full gamut of urban walking.” 964 F.2d at 1182.
Having determined that the Jefferson Memorial is a
nonpublic forum, we have little trouble concluding that the
Park Service Regulations are “viewpoint neutral and
reasonable in light of the purpose [of] the forum.” Marlin v.
D.C. Bd. of Elections and Ethics, 236 F.3d 716, 719 (D.C.
Cir. 2001) (citation and quotation marks omitted). The
Regulations plainly do not discriminate on the basis of
13
viewpoint, but rather prohibit disruptive speech regardless of
its message. Oberwetter argues that the government engages
in viewpoint discrimination by hosting its own official
birthday ceremony in the Memorial while excluding her
celebratory dance. This argument fails because the
government is free to establish venues for the exclusive
expression of its own viewpoint. See Pleasant Grove v.
Summum, 555 U.S. 460 (2009) (holding that when the
government erects a monument on public property, it is not
obligated to allow other monuments expressing alternative
viewpoints); Johanns v. Livestock Mktg. Ass’n, 544 U.S. 550,
553 (2005) (“[T]he Government’s own speech . . . is exempt
from First Amendment scrutiny.”). It would be strange indeed
to hold that the government may not favor its own expression
inside the Jefferson Memorial, which was built by the
government for the precise purpose of promoting a particular
viewpoint about Jefferson.
We have noted previously that the Park Service has a
substantial interest in promoting a tranquil environment at our
national memorials. See Henderson, 964 F.2d at 1184 (“Th[e]
interest in maintaining a tranquil mood at the [Vietnam]
Memorial wall is similar to ones that the Supreme Court and
this court have recognized as substantial.”). Here the
government has reasonably advanced its interest in tranquility
because, unlike in Henderson, the restriction on expressive
activity does not sweep beyond the actual Memorial space.
Outside the Jefferson Memorial, of course, Oberwetter and
her friends have always been free to dance to their hearts’
content.
IV
Finally, we turn to Oberwetter’s claims against Officer
Hilliard under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403
14
U.S. 388 (1971). Oberwetter alleges that Hilliard personally
violated her First and Fourth Amendment rights by infringing
her right to free expression, arresting her without probable
cause, and subjecting her to excessive force. “Although
government officials may be sued in their individual
capacities for damages under Bivens, qualified immunity
protects officials from liability ‘insofar as their conduct does
not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights
of which a reasonable person would have known.’” Atherton
v. District of Columbia, 567 F.3d 672, 689 (D.C. Cir. 2009)
(quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)). In
evaluating a claim of qualified immunity, we first “determine
whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual
constitutional right at all, and if so, proceed to determine
whether that right was clearly established at the time of
violation.” Stewart v. Evans, 351 F.3d 1239, 1243 (D.C. Cir.
2003) (quoting Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 609 (1999)).
Hilliard’s alleged conduct did not violate Oberwetter’s
clearly established constitutional rights. She had no First
Amendment right to stage an unlawful performance inside the
Jefferson Memorial, and in doing so created the cause for her
own arrest. She alleges that Hilliard acted out of malice,
arresting her for no good reason after she questioned his
authority. But in fact her arrest was prompted not merely by
her questioning Hilliard, but rather by her failure to comply
with his lawful order during the course of her unlawful
conduct. In any event, Hilliard’s motive would not affect the
existence of probable cause, which depends “on an objective
assessment of the officer’s actions in light of the facts and
circumstances confronting him at the time . . . and not on the
officer’s actual state of mind at the time the challenged action
was taken.” Maryland v. Macon, 472 U.S. 463, 470-71
(1985). Hilliard was objectively justified in arresting
Oberwetter because he observed her breaking the law.
15
Oberwetter’s remaining Bivens claim is that Hilliard
violated the Fourth Amendment by using excessive force
when he pulled her arm behind her back and pushed her up
against a stone column during her arrest. In general, police
officers have authority to use “some degree of physical
coercion” when subduing a suspect, Graham v. Connor, 490
U.S. 386, 396 (1989), as long as the amount of force used is
reasonable. In Judge Friendly’s famous formulation, “Not
every push or shove, even if it may later seem unnecessary in
the peace of a judge’s chambers, violates a prisoner’s
constitutional rights.” Johnson v. Glick, 481 F.2d 1028, 1033
(2d Cir. 1973). We determine the reasonableness of force
based on “the facts and circumstances of [the] particular case,
including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the
suspect pose[d] an immediate threat to the safety of the
officers or others, and whether [s]he [wa]s actively resisting
arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.” Graham, 490
U.S. at 396. “The calculus of reasonableness must embody
allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to
make split-second judgments—in circumstances that are
tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving—about the amount of
force that is necessary in a particular situation.” Id. at 396-97.
Thus, for Oberwetter’s claim to prevail, “the excessiveness of
the force [must be] so apparent that no reasonable officer
could have believed in the lawfulness of his actions.”
Wardlaw v. Pickett, 1 F.3d 1297, 1303 (D.C. Cir. 1993).
Although Oberwetter’s alleged violation was far from
“sever[e],” her complaint nonetheless makes clear that Officer
Hilliard’s use of force was not excessive. Most instructive on
this point is Wasserman v. Rodacker, 557 F.3d 635 (D.C. Cir.
2009), where a man was forcibly arrested after refusing a
police officer’s request to stop and answer some questions
while walking his dog in violation of a leash law. Although
16
the man eventually stopped and “was not moving or offering
any resistance,” the officer “forcefully pressed upwards on
[his] arm before handcuffing him, causing him pain.” Id. at
641. The court held that the use of force was reasonable
because the man’s “refusal to obey [the officer’s] order prior
to his arrest suggested that he might try to resist or escape.”
Id. The court also found it significant that the man “suffered
no bruise or injury, which tends to confirm that [the officer]
did not use more force than reasonably appeared necessary to
secure [his] compliance.” Id. (internal quotation marks
omitted).
The same factors are dispositive in the present case.
Oberwetter admits in her complaint that before she was
arrested she twice refused Hilliard’s order to stop dancing and
leave the Memorial. She also admits that she was
accompanied by a group of 17 other people at the time, which
in our view could have caused Hilliard to be reasonably
worried that events might get out of hand. This is especially
true given the lateness of the hour and the unusual activity of
the crowd, whose intentions he did not know. Under such
circumstances it was not clearly unreasonable for Hilliard to
take decisive action to subdue Oberwetter quickly and
forcefully, thereby reducing the risk of interference or escape.
Given that some force may have appeared reasonably
necessary, Hilliard’s alleged actions were not markedly
different from what we would expect in the course of a
routine arrest. As in Wasserman, the fact that Hilliard did not
cause Oberwetter any serious bodily injury tends to confirm
that the use of force was not excessive. See also Wardlaw, 1
F.3d at 1304 & n.7 (noting that while the absence of a severe
injury “is not by itself the basis for deciding whether the force
used was excessive, it does provide some indication” that the
degree of force was reasonable).
17
In light of these considerations, we agree with the district
court that Oberwetter’s complaint has failed to state a
sufficient claim that Hilliard’s actions were beyond the pale
of reasonableness as established by our case law.
V
The judgment of the district court is
Affirmed.