Estate of Armstrong Ex Rel. Armstrong v. Village of Pinehurst

PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1191

THE ESTATE OF RONALD H. ARMSTRONG, by and through his
Administratrix, Jinia Armstrong Lopez,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

THE VILLAGE OF PINEHURST; OFFICER JERRY MCDONALD, In his
official and individual capacity; OFFICER TINA S. SHEPPARD,
In her official and individual capacity; OFFICER ARTHUR LEE
GATLING, JR., In his official and individual capacity,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

TASER INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:13-cv-00407-CCE-JLW)

Argued: October 28, 2015 Decided: January 11, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Thacker wrote the opinion,
in which Judge Keenan joined. Judge Wilkinson wrote a separate
opinion concurring in part.
ARGUED: Karonnie R. Truzy, CRUMLEY ROBERTS, LLP, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Dan McCord Hartzog, CRANFILL
SUMNER & HARTZOG LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
ON BRIEF: David J. Ventura, CRUMLEY ROBERTS, LLP, Charlotte,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Dan M. Hartzog, Jr., CRANFILL
SUMNER & HARTZOG LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina; Michael J.
Newman, VAN CAMP, MEACHAM & NEWMAN PLLC, Pinehurst, North
Carolina, for Appellees.

2
THACKER, Circuit Judge:

The Estate of Ronald H. Armstrong (“Appellant” when

referring to the estate, or “Armstrong” when referring to the

decedent) appeals an order granting summary judgment to the

Village of Pinehurst, North Carolina, and Lieutenant Jerry

McDonald, Sergeant Tina Sheppard, and Officer Arthur Gatling,

Jr., of the Pinehurst Police Department (“Appellees”). The

district court determined that qualified immunity bars

Appellant’s claim that Appellees used excessive force when

executing an involuntary commitment order, which required

Armstrong’s immediate hospitalization.

On review, we hold that Appellees used

unconstitutionally excessive force when seizing Armstrong, but

we, nevertheless, agree with the district court that Appellees

are entitled to qualified immunity. We, therefore, affirm the

grant of summary judgment in Appellees’ favor on the grounds

explained below.

I.

We review the district court’s grant of summary

judgment de novo. See Henry v. Purnell, 652 F.3d 524, 531 (4th

Cir. 2011) (en banc). We “determine de novo whether the

facts . . . establish the deprivation of an actual

constitutional right,” Leverette v. Bell, 247 F.3d 160, 166 (4th

Cir. 2001), and “[w]e review de novo an award of summary

3
judgment on the basis of qualified immunity,” Durham v. Horner,

690 F.3d 183, 188 (4th Cir. 2012). “Summary judgment is

appropriate only if taking the evidence and all reasonable

inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the

nonmoving party, ‘no material facts are disputed and the moving

party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” Henry, 652

F.3d at 531 (quoting Ausherman v. Bank of Am. Corp., 352 F.3d

896, 899 (4th Cir. 2003)).

II.

A.

Ronald Armstrong suffered from bipolar disorder and

paranoid schizophrenia. On April 23, 2011, he had been off his

prescribed medication for five days and was poking holes through

the skin on his leg “to let the air out.” J.A. 675. 1 His

sister, Jinia Armstrong Lopez (“Lopez”), worried by his

behavior, convinced Armstrong to accompany her to Moore Regional

Hospital (“Hospital”) in Pinehurst, North Carolina. He

willingly went to the Hospital and checked in, but “[d]uring the

course of the evaluation he apparently became frightened and

eloped from the [emergency department].” Id. Based on that

flight and Lopez’s report about his odd behavior over the

1Citations to the “J.A.” refer to the Joint Appendix filed
by the parties in this appeal.

4
previous week, the examining doctor judged Armstrong a danger to

himself and issued involuntary commitment papers to compel his

return. Armstrong’s doctor could have, but did not, designate

him a danger to others, checking only the box that reads

“[m]entally ill and dangerous to self” on the commitment form.

Id.

The Pinehurst police were called as soon as Armstrong

left the Hospital, and three members of the department -- all

Appellees in this case -- responded in short order. Officer

Gatling appeared on the scene first, followed a minute or two

later by Sergeant Sheppard. Lieutenant McDonald arrived about

ten minutes after Sheppard. Armstrong had not traveled far when

Gatling arrived. He was located near an intersection near the

Hospital’s main entrance.

When the police arrived, Armstrong’s commitment order

had not yet been finalized. 2 Therefore, Gatling and Sheppard

engaged Armstrong in conversation. By all accounts, the parties

were calm and cooperative at this point in time.

2North Carolina law required that Armstrong’s involuntary
commitment order be certified in writing and notarized before it
took effect. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 122C-262(b). Police
officers are sometimes authorized to seize individuals to
prevent them from harming themselves without a commitment order
in place, see id. § 122C-262(a), but Appellees did not go that
route. Rather, they rely solely on the involuntary commitment
order as authorization for their seizure of Armstrong.

5
 Armstrong was acting strangely, however. When Officer

Gatling first initiated conversation, Armstrong was wandering

across an active roadway that intersects with the Hospital’s

driveway. Gatling successfully convinced him to withdraw to the

relative safety of the roadside, but Armstrong then proceeded to

eat grass and dandelions, chew on a gauze-like substance, and

put cigarettes out on his tongue while the police officers

waited for the commitment order.

As soon as they learned that the commitment papers

were complete, the three police officers surrounded and advanced

toward Armstrong -- who reacted by sitting down and wrapping

himself around a four-by-four post that was supporting a nearby

stop sign. The officers tried to pry Armstrong’s arms and legs

off of the post, but he was wrapped too tightly and would not

budge.

Immediately following finalization of the involuntary

commitment order, in other words, Armstrong was seated on the

ground, anchored to the base of a stop sign post, in defiance of

the order. The three police officers at the scene were

surrounding him, struggling to remove him from the post. Lopez

was in the immediate vicinity as well, along with Jack

Blankenship and Johnny Verbal, two Hospital security officers.

So Armstrong was encircled by six people -- three Pinehurst

police officers tasked with returning him to the Hospital, two

6
Hospital security guards tasked with returning him to the

Hospital, and his sister, who was pleading with him to return to

the Hospital.

Appellees did not prolong this stalemate. Nor did

they attempt to engage in further conversation with Armstrong.

Instead, just thirty seconds or so after the officers told

Armstrong his commitment order was final, Lieutenant McDonald

instructed Officer Gatling to prepare to tase Armstrong.

Officer Gatling drew his taser, set it to “drive stun mode,” 3 and

announced that, if Armstrong did not let go of the post, he

would be tased. That warning had no effect, so Gatling deployed

the taser -- five separate times over a period of approximately

two minutes. 4 Rather than have its desired effect, the tasing

actually increased Armstrong’s resistance.

3 Tasers generally have two modes. “In dart mode, a taser
shoots probes into a subject and overrides the central nervous
system.” Estate of Booker v. Gomez, 745 F.3d 405, 414 n.10
(10th Cir. 2014). Drive stun mode, on the other hand, “does not
cause an override of the victim’s central nervous system”; that
mode “is used as a pain compliance tool with limited threat
reduction.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Appellees’
expert confirmed that the drive stun mode on the TASER X26 ECD
that Officer Gatling was carrying is intended to be used for
pain compliance rather than incapacitation.
4 The number of times Armstrong was tased is a disputed
fact. But Lopez testified that she saw it happen five times,
and because summary judgment was granted in favor of Appellees,
this court must accept her version of the facts. See Henry v.
Purnell, 652 F.3d 524, 527 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc).

7
 But shortly after the tasing ceased, Blankenship and

Verbal jumped in to assist the three police officers trying to

pull Armstrong off of his post. That group of five successfully

removed Armstrong and laid him facedown on the ground.

During the struggle, Armstrong complained that he was

being choked. While no witness saw the police apply any

chokeholds, Lopez did see officers “pull[] his collar like they

were choking him” during the struggle. J.A. 192.

With Armstrong separated from the post, Appellees

restrained him. Lieutenant McDonald and Sergeant Sheppard

pinned Armstrong down by placing a knee on his back and standing

on his back, respectively, while handcuffs were applied. But

even after being cuffed, Armstrong continued to kick at Sergeant

Sheppard, so the police shackled his legs too.

The officers then stood up to collect themselves.

They left Armstrong facedown in the grass with his hands cuffed

behind his back and his legs shackled. At this point, he was no

longer moving -- at all. Lopez was the first to notice that her

brother was unresponsive, so she asked the officers to check on

him. Appellees did so immediately, 5 but Armstrong’s condition

5
It is not clear exactly how long Armstrong was left
facedown on the ground after he had been secured. But Lopez
conceded that it “happen[ed] pretty quickly really” and that the
officers responded “immediately” when asked to check on
(Continued)
8
had already become dire. When the officers flipped him over,

his skin had turned a bluish color and he did not appear to be

breathing.

Sergeant Sheppard and Lieutenant McDonald administered

CPR, and Lieutenant McDonald radioed dispatch to send Emergency

Medical Services (“EMS”). EMS responders transported Armstrong

to the Hospital’s emergency department where resuscitation

attempts continued but were unsuccessful. He was pronounced

dead shortly after admission. According to the Pinehurst Police

Department’s summary of communications during the incident, just

six and one-half minutes elapsed between dispatch advising

Appellees that Armstrong’s commitment papers were final and

Appellees radioing for EMS.

B.

Based on the foregoing, Appellant filed a complaint in

the Superior Court of Moore County, North Carolina, on April 16,

2013. Appellant sued each police officer involved in

Armstrong’s seizure, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that

the officers used excessive force, in violation of Armstrong’s

Armstrong. J.A. 241. Other witnesses estimated the time as “a
couple of seconds” and “15 to 20 seconds.” Id. at 346, 446.

9
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, when seizing him. 6

Appellees removed the case to the United States District Court

for the Middle District of North Carolina on May 20, 2013.

The district court granted summary judgment to

Appellees on January 27, 2015, reasoning, “[i]t is highly

doubtful that the evidence establishes a constitutional

violation at all, but assuming it does, the defendants are

entitled to qualified immunity.” Estate of Ronald H. Armstrong

v. Village of Pinehurst, No. 1:13-cv-407, slip op. at 4

(M.D.N.C. Jan. 27, 2015) (citation omitted). Appellant filed a

timely notice of appeal on February 24, 2015.

III.

A.

“Qualified immunity protects officers who commit

constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly

established law, could reasonably believe that their actions

were lawful.” Henry v. Purnell, 652 F.3d 524, 531 (4th Cir.

6 Appellant’s complaint alleges additional causes of action
and names additional defendants. But Appellant’s brief on
appeal presses only one claim: The officers attempting to
execute the involuntary commitment order used unconstitutionally
excessive force. “Failure to present or argue assignments of
error in opening appellate briefs constitutes a waiver of those
issues,” IGEN Int’l, Inc. v. Roche Diagnostics GmbH, 335 F.3d
303, 308 (4th Cir. 2003), so the excessive force claim is the
only matter that remains pending in this appeal. See Fed. R.
App. P. 28(a)(8)(A).

10
2011) (en banc). A “qualified immunity analysis,” therefore,

“typically involves two inquiries: (1) whether the plaintiff has

established the violation of a constitutional right, and (2)

whether that right was clearly established at the time of the

alleged violation.” Raub v. Campbell, 785 F.3d 876, 881 (4th

Cir. 2015). The court “may address these two questions in ‘the

order . . . that will best facilitate the fair and efficient

disposition of each case.’” Id. (alteration in original)

(quoting Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 242 (2009)).

Appellant’s case survives summary judgment, however, only if we

answer both questions in the affirmative. See Pearson, 555 U.S.

at 232.

In this case, we adhere to “the better approach to

resolving cases in which the defense of qualified immunity is

raised,” that is, we “determine first whether the plaintiff has

alleged a deprivation of a constitutional right at all.”

Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232 (quoting Cnty. of Sacramento v. Lewis,

523 U.S. 833, 841 n.5 (1998)). Though this sequence is “no

longer . . . regarded as mandatory,” it is “often beneficial,”

and “is especially valuable with respect to questions that do

not frequently arise in cases in which a qualified immunity

defense is unavailable.” Id. at 236. Because excessive force

claims raise such questions, see Nancy Leong, Improving Rights,

100 Va. L. Rev. 377, 393 (2014) (“[E]xcessive force claims are

11
litigated over 98% of the time in the civil context . . . .”),

we exercise our discretion to address the constitutional

question presented by this appeal first.

B.

Our initial inquiry, then, is this: “Taken in the

light most favorable to the party asserting the injury, do the

facts alleged show the officer’s conduct violated a

constitutional right?” Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194, 197

(2004) (per curiam) (quoting Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201

(2001)). In this case, the answer is yes. Viewed in the light

most favorable to Appellant, the record before us establishes

that, when seizing Armstrong, Appellees used unreasonably

excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

A “claim that law enforcement officials used excessive

force in the course of making an arrest, investigatory stop, or

other ‘seizure’ of [a] person” is “properly analyzed under the

Fourth Amendment’s ‘objective reasonableness’ standard.” Graham

v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 388 (1989); see also Scott v. Harris,

550 U.S. 372, 381 (2007). “The test of reasonableness under the

Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition or

mechanical application.” Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 559

(1979). But the Court has counseled that the test “requires a

careful balancing of the nature and quality of the intrusion on

the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests against the

12
countervailing governmental interests at stake.” Smith v. Ray,

781 F.3d 95, 101 (4th Cir. 2015) (quoting Graham, 490 U.S. at

396). There are, moreover, three factors the Court enumerated

to guide this balancing. First, we look to “the severity of the

crime at issue”; second, we examine the extent to which “the

suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers

or others”; and third, we consider “whether [the suspect] is

actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by

flight.” Id. (alteration supplied) (quoting Graham, 490 U.S. at

396). “To properly consider the reasonableness of the force

employed we must ‘view it in full context, with an eye toward

the proportionality of the force in light of all the

circumstances.’” Id. (quoting Waterman v. Batton, 393 F.3d 471,

481 (4th Cir. 2005)).

1.

Here, the first Graham factor favors Appellant.

Appellees have never suggested that Armstrong committed a crime

or that they had probable cause to effect a criminal arrest.

When the subject of a seizure “ha[s] not committed any crime,

this factor weighs heavily in [the subject’s] favor.” Bailey v.

Kennedy, 349 F.3d 731, 743-44 (4th Cir. 2003); see also Turmon

v. Jordan, 405 F.3d 202, 207 (4th Cir. 2005) (“[T]he severity of

the crime cannot be taken into account because there was no

crime.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). And this factor

13
would still favor Appellant if Appellees had argued that their

seizure was converted to a criminal arrest when Armstrong failed

to obey the officers’ lawful orders. “Even in a case in which

the plaintiff ha[s] committed a crime, when the offense [i]s a

minor one, we have found that the first Graham factor weigh[s]

in plaintiff’s favor . . . .” Jones v. Buchanan, 325 F.3d 520,

528 (4th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted).

But we have also recognized that this first Graham

factor is intended as a proxy for determining whether “an

officer [had] any reason to believe that [the subject of a

seizure] was a potentially dangerous individual.” Smith, 781

F.3d at 102. And while Armstrong committed no crime, the legal

basis of his seizure did put Appellees on notice of two facts

that bear on the question of whether Appellees had reason to

believe Armstrong was dangerous.

First, as the subject of an involuntary commitment

order, executed pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 122C-262,

Armstrong was necessarily considered “mentally ill.” See also

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 122C-261(a). Armstrong’s mental health was

thus one of the “facts and circumstances” that “a reasonable

officer on the scene” would ascertain. Graham, 490 U.S. at 396.

And it is a fact that officers must account for when deciding

when and how to use force. See Champion v. Outlook Nashville,

Inc., 380 F.3d 893, 904 (6th Cir. 2004) (“It cannot be forgotten

14
that the police were confronting an individual whom they knew to

be mentally ill . . . . The diminished capacity of an unarmed

detainee must be taken into account when assessing the amount of

force exerted.”). “The problems posed by, and thus the tactics

to be employed against, an unarmed, emotionally distraught

individual who is creating a disturbance or resisting arrest are

ordinarily different from those involved in law enforcement

efforts to subdue an armed and dangerous criminal who has

recently committed a serious offense.” Bryan v. MacPherson, 630

F.3d 805, 829 (9th Cir. 2010) (alteration omitted) (quoting

Deorle v. Rutherford, 272 F.3d 1272, 1282-83 (9th Cir. 2001)).

“[T]he use of force that may be justified by” the government’s

interest in seizing a mentally ill person, therefore, “differs

both in degree and in kind from the use of force that would be

justified against a person who has committed a crime or who

poses a threat to the community.” Id.

Mental illness, of course, describes a broad spectrum

of conditions and does not dictate the same police response in

all situations. But “in some circumstances at least,” it means

that “increasing the use of force may . . . exacerbate the

situation.” Deorle, 272 F.3d at 1283. Accordingly, “the use of

officers and others trained in the art of counseling is

ordinarily advisable, where feasible, and may provide the best

means of ending a crisis.” Id. And even when this ideal course

15
is not feasible, officers who encounter an unarmed and minimally

threatening individual who is “exhibit[ing] conspicuous signs

that he [i]s mentally unstable” must “de-escalate the situation

and adjust the application of force downward.” Martin v. City

of Broadview Heights, 712 F.3d 951, 962 (6th Cir. 2013).

The second relevant fact that Appellees could glean

from Armstrong’s commitment order is that a doctor determined

him to be a danger to himself. 7 Where a seizure’s sole

justification is preventing harm to the subject of the seizure,

the government has little interest in using force to effect that

seizure. Rather, using force likely to harm the subject is

manifestly contrary to the government’s interest in initiating

that seizure. See Drummond ex rel. Drummond v. City of Anaheim,

343 F.3d 1052, 1059 (9th Cir. 2003) (When “a mentally disturbed

7Armstrong’s involuntary commitment order could have issued
in order “to prevent harm to self or others,” N.C. Gen. Stat.
§ 122C-262(a) (emphasis supplied), and it is not entirely clear
from the record whether reasonable officers at the scene would
have known that Armstrong had only been judged a danger to
himself or would have thought that a doctor may consider him a
danger to others. The officers did, however, speak to Wayne
Morton, the behavioral assessment nurse who assisted with
preparation of Armstrong’s commitment papers, prior to seizing
Armstrong. In addition, the officers observed Armstrong for
over 20 minutes before the involuntary commitment order was
issued. During this period, Armstrong engaged in behavior
mildly harmful to himself, but he exhibited no risk of flight or
risk of harm to others. Taking these facts in the light most
favorable to Appellant, objectively reasonable officers would be
aware of the basis underlying Armstrong’s commitment order.

16
individual not wanted for any crime . . . [i]s being taken into

custody to prevent injury to himself[,] [d]irectly causing [that

individual] grievous injury does not serve th[e officers’]

objective in any respect.”).

The first Graham factor thus weighs against imposition

of force. The government’s interest in seizing Armstrong was to

prevent a mentally ill man from harming himself. The

justification for the seizure, therefore, does not vindicate any

degree of force that risks substantial harm to the subject.

2.

The second and third Graham factors, whether Armstrong

threatened the safety of others and resisted seizure, do justify

some -- limited -- use of force, though. Appellees had observed

Armstrong wandering into traffic with little regard for avoiding

the passing cars, and the seizure took place only a few feet

from an active roadway. Armstrong, moreover, fled from the

Hospital earlier that day, although he did not go far. Under

such circumstances, Appellees concerns that Armstrong may try to

flee into the street to avoid being returned to the Hospital,

thereby endangering himself and individuals in passing cars,

were objectively reasonable. A degree of force was,

consequently, justified.

But that justified degree of force is the degree

reasonably calculated to prevent Armstrong’s flight. When

17
Appellees decided to begin using force, Armstrong, who stood

5’11” tall and weighed 262 pounds, was stationary, seated,

clinging to a post, and refusing to move. He was also

outnumbered and surrounded by police officers and security

guards. The degree of force necessary to prevent an individual

who is affirmatively refusing to move from fleeing is obviously

quite limited.

Armstrong was also resisting the seizure. There is no

question that, prior to being tased, Armstrong was refusing to

let go of the post he had wrapped himself around despite verbal

instruction to desist and a brief -- 30-second -- attempt to

physically pull him off. Noncompliance with lawful orders

justifies some use of force, but the level of justified force

varies based on the risks posed by the resistance. See Bryan,

630 F.3d at 830 (“‘Resistance,’ however, should not be

understood as a binary state, with resistance being either

completely passive or active. . . . Even purely passive

resistance can support the use of some force, but the level of

force an individual’s resistance will support is dependent on

the factual circumstances underlying that resistance.”) And,

here, the factual circumstances demonstrate little risk --

Armstrong was stationary, non-violent, and surrounded by people

willing to help return him to the Hospital. That Armstrong was

not allowing his arms to be pulled from the post and was

18
refusing to comply with shouted orders to let go, while cause

for some concern, do not import much danger or urgency into a

situation that was, in effect, a static impasse.

3.

When we turn “an eye toward the proportionality of the

force in light of all the[se] circumstances,’” Smith, 781 F.3d

at 101 (alteration and emphasis supplied) (quoting Waterman, 393

F.3d at 481), it becomes evident that the level of force

Appellees chose to use was not objectively reasonable.

Appellees were confronted with a situation involving few

exigencies where the Graham factors justify only a limited

degree of force. Immediately tasing a non-criminal, mentally

ill individual, who seconds before had been conversational, was

not a proportional response.

Deploying a taser is a serious use of force. The

weapon is designed to “caus[e] . . . excruciating pain,”

Cavanaugh v. Woods Cross City, 625 F.3d 661, 665 (10th Cir.

2010), and application can burn a subject’s flesh, see Orem v.

Rephann, 523 F.3d 442, 447-48 (4th Cir. 2008) abrogated on other

grounds by Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34, 37 (2010); cf.

Commonwealth v. Caetano, 26 N.E.3d 688, 692 (Mass. 2015) (“[W]e

consider the stun gun a per se dangerous weapon at common

law.”). We have observed that a taser “inflicts a painful and

frightening blow.” Orem, 523 F.3d at 448 (quoting Hickey v.

19
Reeder, 12 F.3d 754, 757 (8th Cir. 1993)). Other circuits have

made similar observations. 8 See, e.g., Estate of Booker v.

Gomez, 745 F.3d 405, 414 n.9 (10th Cir. 2014) (“A taser delivers

electricity into a person’s body, causing severe pain.”); Abbott

v. Sangamon Cnty., 705 F.3d 706, 726 (7th Cir. 2013) (“This

court has acknowledged that one need not have personally endured

a taser jolt to know the pain that must accompany it, and

several of our sister circuits have likewise recognized the

intense pain inflicted by a taser.” (internal citations and

quotation marks omitted)); Bryan, 630 F.3d at 825 (“The

physiological effects, the high levels of pain, and foreseeable

risk of physical injury lead us to conclude that the X26 and

similar devices are a greater intrusion than other non-lethal

methods of force we have confronted.”).

8
Officer Gatling deployed his taser in drive stun mode,
which is intended to cause pain but is not intended to cause
paralysis. See supra n.3. Our conclusions about the severity
of taser use, however, would be the same had he used dart mode.
Dart mode, no less than drive stun mode, inflicts extreme pain.
See David A. Harris, Taser Use by Law Enforcement: Report of the
Use of Force Working Group of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, 71
U. Pitt. L. Rev. 719, 726-27 (2010) (“I remember only one
coherent thought in my head while this was occurring: STOP!
STOP! GET THIS OFF ME! Despite my strong desire to do
something, all through the Taser exposure I was completely
paralyzed. I could not move at all.” (emphasis in original)).
And the risk of injury is increased because a paralyzed subject
may be injured by the impact from falling to the ground. See
Bryan, 630 F.3d at 824. Taser use is severe and injurious
regardless of the mode to which the taser is set.

20
 These observations about the severe pain inflicted by

tasers apply when police officers utilize best practices. The

taser use at issue in this case, however, contravenes current

industry and manufacturer recommendations. Since at least 2011,

the Police Executive Research Forum (“PERF”) and the Department

of Justice’s Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

(“COPS”) have cautioned that using drive stun mode “to achieve

pain compliance may have limited effectiveness and, when used

repeatedly, may even exacerbate the situation.” PERF & COPS,

2011 Electronic Control Weapon Guidelines, at 14 (March 2011)

(emphasis omitted). The organizations, therefore, recommend

that police departments “carefully consider policy and training

regarding when and how personnel use the drive stun mode[] and .

. . discourage its use as a pain compliance tactic.” Id. In

2013, moreover, Taser International, the manufacturer of the

taser Appellees used in this case, warned, “Drive-stun use may

not be effective on emotionally disturbed persons or others who

may not respond to pain due to a mind-body disconnect.” Cheryl

W. Thompson & Mark Berman, Stun guns: ‘There was just too much

use,’ Wash. Post, Nov. 27, 2015, at A1. Taser users, the

warning goes on, should “[a]void using repeated drive-stuns on

such individuals if compliance is not achieved.” Id. Even the

company that manufactures tasers, in other words, now warns

against the precise type of taser use inflicted on Armstrong.

21
 Force that imposes serious consequences requires

significant circumscription. Our precedent, consequently, makes

clear that tasers are proportional force only when deployed in

response to a situation in which a reasonable officer would

perceive some immediate danger that could be mitigated by using

the taser. In Meyers v. Baltimore County, we parsed a

defendant-officer’s taser deployments based on the level of

resistance the arrestee was offering -- and the danger that

resistance posed to the officers -- when each shock was

administered. See 713 F.3d 723, 733-34 (4th Cir. 2013). The

“first three deployments of [the] taser did not amount to an

unreasonable or excessive use of force[] [because the arrestee]

was acting erratically, was holding a baseball bat that he did

not relinquish until after he received the second shock, and was

advancing toward the officers . . . .” Id. at 733. But seven

later deployments of the taser did amount to excessive force:

It is an excessive and unreasonable use of
force for a police officer repeatedly to
administer electrical shocks with a taser on
an individual who no longer is armed, has
been brought to the ground, has been
restrained physically by several other
officers, and no longer is actively
resisting arrest.

Id. at 734. Immediate danger was thus key to our distinction --

tasing the arrestee ceased being proportional force when the

22
officer “continued to use his taser” after the arrestee “did not

pose a continuing threat to the officers’ safety.” Id. at 733.

In Orem v. Rephann, though we were applying a

Fourteenth Amendment test rather than the Fourth Amendment’s

objective reasonableness test, we rejected an officer’s argument

that the taser deployment in question was intended to prevent an

arrestee from endangering herself because the facts belied any

immediate danger. See 523 F.3d at 447-49. Rather, those facts

-- that “Orem was handcuffed, weighed about 100 pounds, had her

ankles loosened in the hobbling device which Deputy Boyles was

tightening, and was locked in the back seat cage of Deputy

Boyles’s car until Deputy Rephann opened the door” -- indicated

that “the taser gun was not used for a legitimate purpose[,]

such as protecting the officers, protecting Orem, or preventing

Orem’s escape.” Id. As in Meyers, then, we tied permissible

taser use to situations that present some exigency that is

sufficiently dangerous to justify the force.

Appellees understand these cases to proscribe tasing

when a subject has already been restrained but to sanction the

practice when deployed against active resistance. Since

Armstrong was unrestrained and actively resisting, they contend,

their taser use must be permissible.

We disagree. While the questions whether an arrestee

has been restrained and is complying with police directives are,

23
of course, relevant to any inquiry into the extent to which the

arrestee “pose[s] a continuing threat to the officers’ safety,”

Meyers, 713 F.3d at 733, they are not dispositive. A rule

limiting taser use to situations involving a proportional safety

threat does not countenance use in situations where an

unrestrained arrestee, though resistant, presents no serious

safety threat.

Indeed, application of physical restraints cannot be

the only way to ensure that an arrestee does not pose a

sufficient safety threat to justify a tasing. If it were, use

of a taser would be justified at the outset of every lawful

seizure, before an arrestee has been restrained. This, of

course, is not the law. Courts recognize that different

seizures present different risks of danger. See, e.g., Parker

v. Gerrish, 547 F.3d 1, 9 (1st Cir. 2008) (“Though driving while

intoxicated is a serious offense, it does not present a risk of

danger to the arresting officer that is presented when an

officer confronts a suspect engaged in an offense like robbery

or assault.”). Firing a taser “almost immediately upon arrival”

at the scene of an altercation, before an officer “could . . .

have known what was going on,” is, consequently,

constitutionally proscribed. Casey v. City of Fed. Heights, 509

F.3d 1278, 1285 (10th Cir. 2007); see also id. at 1286 (“[I]t is

excessive to use a Taser to control a target without having any

24
reason to believe that a lesser amount of force -- or a verbal

command -- could not exact compliance.”). Painful, injurious,

serious inflictions of force, like the use of a taser, do not

become reasonable simply because officers have authorization to

arrest a subject who is unrestrained.

Even noncompliance with police directives and non-

violent physical resistance do not necessarily create “a

continuing threat to the officers’ safety.” Meyers, 713 F.3d at

733. Examples of minimally risky physical resistance are

prevalent. Refusing to enter an out-of-state officer’s police

car until a local officer is summoned is not a sufficient threat

to the arresting officer to justify physically striking the

arrestee. See Rambo v. Daley, 68 F.3d 203, 207 (7th Cir. 1995).

Nor is an arrestee pulling her arm away when a police officer

attempts to grab her without explanation. See Smith, 781 F.3d

at 103. An arrestee “yank[ing] his arm away” from a police

officer, similarly, does not justify “being tackled.” Goodson

v. City of Corpus Christi, 202 F.3d 730, 733, 740 (5th Cir.

2000).

Unsurprisingly, then, other circuits have held that

taser use can constitute excessive force when used in response

to non-violent resistance. The subject of a seizure “refus[ing]

to release his arms for handcuffing,” for example, “is no[t]

evidence suggesting that [he] violently resisted the officers’

25
attempts to handcuff him.” Cyrus v. Town of Mukwonago, 624 F.3d

856, 863 (7th Cir. 2010) (emphasis supplied). Such a refusal,

therefore, does not justify deploying a taser when the subject

“[i]s unarmed and there [i]s little risk [he] could access a

weapon,” according to the Seventh Circuit. Id. The en banc

Ninth Circuit has drawn a similar conclusion: A suspect

“actively resist[s] arrest [when] she refuse[s] to get out of

her car when instructed to do so and stiffen[s] her body and

clutche[s] her steering wheel to frustrate the officers’ efforts

to remove her from her car,” but when she also “d[oes] not evade

arrest by flight, and no other exigent circumstances exist[] at

the time[,] . . . [a] reasonable fact-finder could

conclude . . . that the officers’ use of [a taser] was

unreasonable and therefore constitutionally excessive.” Mattos

v. Agarano, 661 F.3d 433, 446 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc). The

Eighth Circuit agrees as well. See Brown v. City of Golden

Valley, 574 F.3d 491, 497 (8th Cir. 2009) (refusal to terminate

a telephone call after police ordered an arrestee to do so does

not justify tasing even though the police officer was concerned

that the arrestee could use glass tumblers near her feet as

weapons or could kick the officer).

And this conclusion, that taser use is unreasonable

force in response to resistance that does not raise a risk of

immediate danger, is consistent with our treatment of police

26
officers’ more traditional tools of compliance. We have denied

summary judgment on excessive force claims to an officer, who

“punched [an arrestee][,] threw him to the ground,” and,

subsequently, “used a wrestling maneuver” on him, because there

was no “real evidence that [a] relatively passive, [mentally

delayed] man was a danger to the larger, trained police

officer.” Rowland v. Perry, 41 F.3d 167, 172, 174 (4th Cir.

1994). In doing so, we rejected the argument that such force

was a reasonable response to “the resistance offered by [the

arrestee] during the struggle,” reasoning that, despite this

resistance, the arrestee “posed no threat to the officer or

anyone else.” Id. at 173-74.

We have similarly held that punching and throwing an

arrestee to the ground because she “took only a single step back

off of the small stoop in front of the door” and “pulled her arm

away” during an attempted handcuffing was excessive force.

Smith, 781 F.3d at 102-03. This nominal resistance did not

justify the officer’s use of force where a reasonable officer at

the scene would not have “any reason to believe that [the

arrestee] was a potentially dangerous individual” or “was at all

inclined to cause [the officer] any harm.” Id. at 102.

And we have treated pepper spray, a use of force that

causes “closing of the eyes through swelling of the

eyelids, . . . immediate respiratory inflammation, . . .

27
and . . . immediate burning sensations,” similarly, having held

it excessive when used on an arrestee’s wife, who was sprinting

toward police officers to assist her husband upon seeing him

placed in handcuffs. Park v. Shiflett, 250 F.3d 843, 848-49,

852 (4th Cir. 2001). Though the officers at the scene thought

running full-bore toward their detainee was basis to arrest the

wife for “disorderly conduct[] [and] obstruction of a law

enforcement officer in the performance of his duties,” id. at

854 n.* (Traxler, J., concurring in part and dissenting in

part), we rejected any notion that such behavior justified the

application of pepper spray, see id. at 852-83 (maj. op.).

Rather, because “[i]t [wa]s difficult to imagine the

unarmed [wife] as a threat to the officers or the public,” the

officers’ “irresponsible use of pepper spray twice from close

range . . . was indeed excessive.” Id.

In all of these cases, we declined to equate conduct

that a police officer characterized as resistance with an

objective threat to safety entitling the officer to escalate

force. Our precedent, then, leads to the conclusion that a

police officer may only use serious injurious force, like a

taser, when an objectively reasonable officer would conclude

that the circumstances present a risk of immediate danger that

28
could be mitigated by the use of force. At bottom, “physical

resistance” is not synonymous with “risk of immediate danger.” 9

Therefore, in the case before us, Appellees’ use of

force is only “proportional[] . . . in light of all the

circumstances,” Smith, 781 F.3d at 101 (quoting Waterman, 393

F.3d at 481), if Armstrong’s resistance raised a risk of

immediate danger that outweighs the Graham factors militating

against harming Armstrong. But when the facts are viewed in the

light most favorable to Appellant, they simply do not support

that conclusion.

Under these facts, when Officer Gatling deployed his

taser, Armstrong was a mentally ill man being seized for his own

protection, was seated on the ground, was hugging a post to

ensure his immobility, was surrounded by three police officers

9
Graham’s test “requires careful attention to the facts and
circumstances of each particular case.” Graham, 490 U.S. at
396. Our holding, therefore, does not rule out the possibility
that taser use could be justified in some cases where an
arrestee’s non-compliance could be described as non-violent.
Such a situation would require the existence of facts from which
an officer could reasonably conclude that the resistance
presents some immediate danger despite its non-violent
character. See Casey v. City of Fed. Heights, 509 F.3d 1278,
1285 (10th Cir. 2007) (“While we do not rule out the possibility
that there might be circumstances in which the use of a Taser
against a nonviolent offender is appropriate, we think a
reasonable jury could decide that [a police officer] was not
entitled under these circumstances to shoot first and ask
questions later.”).

29
and two Hospital security guards, 10 and had failed to submit to a

lawful seizure for only 30 seconds. A reasonable officer would

have perceived a static stalemate with few, if any, exigencies -

- not an immediate danger so severe that the officer must beget

the exact harm the seizure was intended to avoid.

That Armstrong had already left the Hospital and was

acting strangely while the officers waited for the commitment

order to be finalized do not change this calculus. If merely

acting strangely in such a circumstance served as a green light

to taser deployment, it would then be the rule rather than the

exception when law enforcement officials encounter the mentally

ill. That cannot be. By the time Appellees chose to inflict

force, any threat had sunk to its nadir -- Armstrong had

immobilized himself, ceased chewing on inedible substances, and

ceased burning himself. Use of force designed to “caus[e] . . .

excruciating pain,” Cavanaugh, 625 F.3d at 665, in these

circumstances is an unreasonably disproportionate response.

We are cognizant that courts ought not “undercut the

necessary element of judgment inherent in a constable’s attempts

to control a volatile chain of events.” Brown v. Gilmore, 278

10
Indeed, it was not the deployment of the taser that
ultimately resulted in Armstrong’s removal from the post, but
rather, the additional aid of the two security guards, who
jumped in to assist the three police officers prying him off the
post.

30
F.3d 362, 369 (4th Cir. 2002). And we certainly do not suggest

that Appellees had a constitutional duty to stand idly by and

hope that Armstrong would change his mind and return to the

Hospital on his own accord. But the facts of this case make

clear that our ruling does not hamper police officers’ ability

to do their jobs: Tasing Armstrong did not force him to succumb

to Appellees’ seizure -- he actually increased his resistance in

response. When Appellees stopped tasing and enlisted the

Hospital’s security guards to help pull Armstrong off of the

post, however, the group removed Armstrong and placed him in

restraints. Had Appellees limited themselves to permissible

uses of force when seizing Armstrong, they would have had every

tool needed to control and resolve the situation at their

disposal.

Appellees, therefore, are not entitled to summary

judgment on the question whether they violated the Constitution.

Viewing the record in the light most favorable to Appellant,

Appellees used excessive force, in violation of the Fourth

Amendment. 11

11
We have reviewed Appellant’s additional theories of
excessive force but have determined that they lack merit. Those
theories are based on Appellees’ conduct while handcuffing and
shackling Armstrong. Applying “just enough weight” to
immobilize an individual “continu[ing] to struggle” during
handcuffing is not excessive force. Estate of Phillips v. City
of Milwaukee, 123 F.3d 586, 593 (7th Cir. 1997). Appellant
(Continued)
31
 C.

We, nevertheless, affirm the district court’s grant of

summary judgment in Appellees’ favor because we conclude that

Appellees are entitled to qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity “shields government officials from

liability for civil damages, provided that their conduct does

not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

rights within the knowledge of a reasonable person.” Meyers,

713 F.3d at 731. Not all constitutional violations are

“violat[ions of] clearly established . . . constitutional

rights,” id., so “a plaintiff may prove that an official has

violated his rights, but an official [may still be] entitled to

qualified immunity.” Torchinsky v. Siwinski, 942 F.2d 257, 261

(4th Cir. 1991).

The inquiry into whether a constitutional right is

clearly established requires first that we define the precise

right into which we are inquiring. Because “[t]he dispositive

concedes that Armstrong was resisting Appellees’ efforts to
restrain him, that Appellees stopped applying force to
Armstrong’s back when their restraints were secure, and that
Armstrong was left in the prone position for a very short period
of time after being restrained. Lopez, herself, even placed her
foot on Armstrong’s leg to assist Appellees’ efforts to
immobilize Armstrong and apply restraints. In those
circumstances, an officer at the scene could conclude that the
force used to hold Armstrong down and the length of time
Armstrong was left on the ground were objectively reasonable.

32
question is ‘whether the violative nature of particular conduct

is clearly established,’” Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305, 308

(2015) (per curiam) (emphasis in original) (quoting Ashcroft v.

al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 742 (2011)), courts must “not . . .

define clearly established law at a high level of generality,”

al-Kidd, 563 U.S. at 742.

After defining the right, we ask whether it was

clearly established at the time Appellees acted. A right

satisfies this standard when it is “sufficiently clear that

every reasonable official would have understood that what he is

doing violates that right.” Mullenix, 136 S. Ct. at 308

(quoting Reichle v. Howards, 132 S. Ct. 2088, 2093 (2012)).

“This is not to say that an official action is

protected by qualified immunity unless the very action in

question has previously been held unlawful, but it is to say

that in the light of pre-existing law the unlawfulness must be

apparent.” Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 615 (1999) (quoting

Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987)). “[O]fficials

can . . . be on notice that their conduct violates established

law even in novel factual circumstances.” Hope v. Pelzer, 536

U.S. 730, 741 (2002). But they must, in fact, have notice in

order to be held liable.

The constitutional right in question in the present

case, defined with regard for Appellees’ particular violative

33
conduct, is Armstrong’s right not to be subjected to tasing

while offering stationary and non-violent resistance to a lawful

seizure. Cf. Hagans v. Franklin Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, 695

F.3d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 2012) (“Defined at the appropriate level

of generality -- a reasonably particularized one -- the question

at hand is whether it was clearly established in May 2007 that

using a taser repeatedly on a suspect actively resisting arrest

and refusing to be handcuffed amounted to excessive force.”).

While our precedent supports our conclusion that Appellees

violated that right when seizing Armstrong, we acknowledge that

this conclusion was not so settled at the time they acted such

that “every reasonable official would have understood that”

tasing Armstrong was unconstitutional. Mullenix, 136 S. Ct. at

308 (quoting Reichle, 132 S. Ct. at 2093).

To be sure, substantial case law indicated that

Appellees were treading close to the constitutional line. As

discussed, we have previously held that tasing suspects after

they have been secured, see Meyers, 713 F.3d at 734; 12 Bailey,

12
Meyers v. Baltimore County was decided after Appellees’
conduct in the instant case, but Meyers did not clearly
establish any right for the first time. Rather in Meyers, we
found that the officer in question violated a right that had
been clearly established since, at least, Bailey v. Kennedy,
which was decided in 2003. See Meyers, 713 F.3d at 734-35
(citing Bailey, 349 F.3d at 744-45). Appellees in the instant
case, therefore, were on notice that tasing an individual who
(Continued)
34
349 F.3d at 744-45, and that punching or pepper spraying

suspects in response to minimal, non-violent resistance, see

Park, 250 F.3d at 849-53; Rowland, 41 F.3d at 172-74, constitute

excessive force.

These cases, however, are susceptible to readings

which would not extend to the situation Appellees faced when

seizing Armstrong. Unlike in Meyers and Bailey, Appellees did

not continue using force after Armstrong was secured. See

Meyers, 713 F.3d at 734; Bailey, 349 F.3d at 744. And unlike in

Park and Rowland, Appellant does not contend the officers in

question initiated the excessive force without warning or

opportunity to cease any noncompliance. See Park, 250 F.3d at

848; Rowland, 41 F.3d at 171-72. It would not necessarily have

been clear to every reasonable officer that those cases applied

to force inflicted after warning an individual exhibiting non-

violent resistance to desist and discontinued before that

individual was secured.

A survey of other circuits’ case law confirms that

Appellees did not have sufficiently clear guidance to forfeit

qualified immunity. Again, there were many decisions that ought

to have given Appellees pause. See Bryan, 630 F.3d at 826-27

“was unarmed and effectively was secured” is clearly
unconstitutional. Id. at 735.

35
(taser use against individual exhibiting “unusual behavior” and

“shouting gibberish[] and . . . expletives” who was “unarmed,

stationary . . ., [and] facing away from an officer at a

distance of fifteen to twenty-five feet” constitutes excessive

force); Cyrus, 624 F.3d at 863 (taser use when misdemeanant was

not violent and did not try to flee but resisted being

handcuffed constitutes excessive force); Brown, 574 F.3d at 499

(“[I]t was unlawful to Taser a nonviolent, suspected

misdemeanant who was not fleeing or resisting arrest, who posed

little to no threat to anyone’s safety, and whose only

noncompliance with the officer’s commands was to disobey two

orders to end her phone call to a 911 operator.”)

But other cases could be construed to sanction

Appellees’ decision to use a taser. In 2004, the Eleventh

Circuit held, “use of [a] taser gun to effectuate [an]

arrest . . . was reasonably proportionate to the difficult,

tense and uncertain situation” faced by a police officer when an

arrestee “used profanity, moved around and paced in

agitation, . . . yelled at [the officer],” and “repeatedly

refused to comply with . . . verbal commands.” Draper v.

Reynolds, 369 F.3d 1270, 1278 (11th Cir. 2004)). When reviewing

the law as of 2007, moreover, the Sixth Circuit found, “[c]ases

from this circuit and others, before and after May 2007, adhere

to this line: If a suspect actively resists arrest and refuses

36
to be handcuffed, officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment

by using a taser to subdue him.” Hagans, 695 F.3d at 509. The

Hagans court proceeded to provide examples in which the Sixth

Circuit had held tasing reasonable simply because “[t]he suspect

refused to be handcuffed” or “the suspect . . . refused to move

his arms from under his body.” Id. Other circuits, in short,

have sometimes distinguished permissible and impermissible

tasing based on facts establishing bare noncompliance rather

than facts establishing a risk of danger. Because Armstrong was

not complying with Appellees’ commands, these cases negate the

existence of any “consensus of cases of persuasive authority”

across our sister circuits “such that a reasonable officer could

not have believed that his actions were lawful.” Wilson, 526

U.S. at 617.

We conclude, therefore, that Armstrong’s right not to

be tased while offering stationary and non-violent resistance to

a lawful seizure was not clearly established on April 23, 2011.

Indeed, two months after Appellees’ conduct in this case, one of

our colleagues wrote, “the objective reasonableness of the use

of Tasers continues to pose difficult challenges to law

enforcement agencies and courts alike. . . . ‘That the law is

still evolving is illustrated in cases granting qualified

immunity for that very reason.’” Henry, 652 F.3d at 539-40

37
(Davis, J., concurring) (quoting McKenney v. Harrison, 635 F.3d

354, 362 (8th Cir. 2011) (Murphy, J., concurring)).

D.

This ought not remain an evolving field of law

indefinitely though. “Without merits adjudication, the legal

rule[s]” governing evolving fields of constitutional law

“remain unclear.” John C. Jeffries, Jr., Reversing the Order of

Battle in Constitutional Torts, 2009 Sup. Ct. Rev. 115, 120.

“What may not be quite so obvious, but is in fact far more

important, is the degradation of constitutional rights that may

result when . . . constitutional tort claims are resolved solely

on grounds of qualified immunity.” Id. This degradation is

most pernicious to rights that are rarely litigated outside the

context of § 1983 actions subject to qualified immunity --

rights like the Fourth Amendment protection against excessive

force at issue here. See id. at 135-36. “For [such rights],

the repeated invocation of qualified immunity will reduce the

meaning of the Constitution to the lowest plausible conception

of its content.” Id. at 120.

Rather than accept this deteriorative creep, we intend

this opinion to clarify when taser use amounts to excessive

force in, at least, some circumstances. A taser, like “a gun, a

baton, . . . or other weapon,” Meyers, 713 F.3d at 735, is

expected to inflict pain or injury when deployed. It,

38
therefore, may only be deployed when a police officer is

confronted with an exigency that creates an immediate safety

risk and that is reasonably likely to be cured by using the

taser. The subject of a seizure does not create such a risk

simply because he is doing something that can be characterized

as resistance -- even when that resistance includes physically

preventing an officer’s manipulations of his body. Erratic

behavior and mental illness do not necessarily create a safety

risk either. To the contrary, when a seizure is intended solely

to prevent a mentally ill individual from harming himself, the

officer effecting the seizure has a lessened interest in

deploying potentially harmful force.

Where, during the course of seizing an out-numbered

mentally ill individual who is a danger only to himself, police

officers choose to deploy a taser in the face of stationary and

non-violent resistance to being handcuffed, those officers use

unreasonably excessive force. While qualified immunity shields

the officers in this case from liability, law enforcement

officers should now be on notice that such taser use violates

the Fourth Amendment.

IV.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the

district court is

AFFIRMED.

39
WILKINSON, Circuit Judge, concurring in part:

I am happy to concur in the judgment of affirmance and in

Part III.C of the majority opinion. Having resolved the case by

properly awarding judgment to defendants on qualified immunity

grounds, the majority had no need to opine on the merits of the

excessive force claim. In fact, it runs serious risks in doing

so.

This was a close case, the very kind of dispute in which

judicial hindsight should not displace the officers’ judgmental

calls. I do not contend that the officers’ behavior was

impeccable here, but I do believe, with the district court, that

it was not the kind of action that merited an award of monetary

damages.

I.

These are difficult situations. It is undisputed that on

April 23, 2011, Armstrong had been off his medications for days

and was in an unpredictable and erratic state. J.A. 210-19. It

is undisputed that by the time Officer Sheppard arrived at the

scene, Armstrong was engaged in self-destructive behavior --

eating grass, dandelions, and gauze, and burning his arms and

tongue with cigarettes. Id. at 507-08. It is undisputed that the

police obtained an involuntary commitment order to bring

Armstrong back to the hospital. Id. at 534. It is undisputed

that Armstrong did not want to return to the hospital despite
his sister’s pleas to stop resisting authorities. Id. at 231. It

is undisputed that Armstrong was a strong man, and weighed about

260 pounds. Id. at 297-98, 411. It is undisputed that before the

officers ultimately detained Armstrong they did not have an

opportunity to frisk him for weapons. Id. at 464. It is

undisputed that the sign post Armstrong gripped was near a

trafficked intersection. Id. at 461. It is undisputed that the

officers “had observed Armstrong wandering into traffic with

little regard for avoiding the passing cars and the seizure took

place only a few feet from an active roadway.” Maj. Op. at 17.

It is undisputed that the officers applied graduated levels of

force -- first verbal commands and then a “soft hands” approach

-- prior to Officer Gatling’s use of his Taser. J.A. 514. It is

undisputed that Armstrong tried to kick the officers as they put

handcuffs on his legs. Id. at 573. “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” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396-97 (1989). That

pretty much describes the situation here.

41
 II.

Having thoughtfully resolved the appeal on qualified

immunity grounds, * the majority launches into an extended

discussion on the merits of the excessive force claim. This is

so unnecessary. Sometimes it is best for courts not to write

large upon the world but to discharge our simple rustic duty to

decide the case.

The Supreme Court in Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223

(2009), gave us the discretion to do just that. Pearson is

admittedly a decision with a bit of back and forth, but its

salient contribution was to liberate the lower federal courts

from the onerous shackles of the Saucier v. Katz regime and

allow them to proceed directly to a qualified immunity analysis

without addressing the merits first. In this regard, Pearson

recognized the foremost duty of courts to resolve cases and

controversies. Id. at 242. That, at least, is what Article III

established us to do.

In fact, proceeding in such a manner is often the

preferable course. The majority says it must go further in order

* Normally, “clearly established” law is found by looking to
Supreme Court cases and the cases in the circuit in which the
officers are located. See Marshall v. Rodgers, __ U.S. __, 133
S.Ct. 1446, 1450 (2013). My good colleagues range somewhat
further afield here, but I think doing so in this case in no way
affected the outcome.

42
to provide clarity in future cases, Maj. Op. at 38-39, but that

clarity is often illusory. Today’s prescription may not fit

tomorrow’s facts and circumstances. Our rather abstract

pronouncements in one case may be of little assistance with the

realities and particulars of another.

As the Supreme Court noted, “the rigid Saucier procedure

comes with a price. The procedure sometimes results in a

substantial expenditure of scarce judicial resources on

difficult questions that have no effect on the outcome of the

case. There are cases in which it is plain that a constitutional

right is not clearly established but far from obvious whether in

fact there is such a right.” Pearson, 555 U.S. at 236-37. So I

would respectfully prefer not to get into the first prong of the

Saucier analysis here. It is “far from obvious,” to use the

Court’s term, that the trial court’s conclusion that

“[a]dditional reasonable force was appropriate under these

circumstances” was unsound. J.A. 767.

Clarity is arguably most difficult to achieve in Fourth

Amendment cases because bright-line rules at most imperfectly

take account of the slight shifts in real-life situations that

can alter what are inescapably close judgment calls. As the

Supreme Court noted,

Although the first prong of the Saucier procedure is
intended to further the development of constitutional
precedent, opinions following that procedure often

43
 fail to make a meaningful contribution to such
development. For one thing, there are cases in which
the constitutional question is so factbound that the
decision provides little guidance for future cases.
See Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 388 (2007) (BREYER,
J., concurring) (counseling against the Saucier two-
step protocol where the question is “so fact dependent
that the result will be confusion rather than
clarity”); Buchanan v. Maine, 469 F.3d 158, 168 (C.A.1
2006) (“We do not think the law elaboration purpose
will be well served here, where the Fourth Amendment
inquiry involves a reasonableness question which is
highly idiosyncratic and heavily dependent on the
facts”).

Pearson, 555 U.S. at 237.

My fine colleagues in the majority have done as good a job

as can be expected given the circumstances. But the very

exemplary quality of the effort serves to illustrate the perils

of the enterprise. The majority notes “that different seizures

present different risks of danger,” Maj. Op. at 24, but fails to

recognize that the spectrum of risk presented cannot be easily

sketched by an appellate court. It is hard to disagree with the

majority’s highly generalized assertion that Taser use is

unwarranted “where an unrestrained arrestee, though resistant,

presents no serious safety threat.” Id. But of course, what

conduct qualifies as “resistant,” and what rises to the level of

a “serious safety threat” is once again dependent on the actual

and infinitely variable facts and circumstances that confront

officers on their beat.

44
 Tasers came into widespread use for a reason. They were

thought preferable to far cruder forms of force such as canines,

sprays, batons, and choke-holds, and it was hoped that their use

would make the deployment of lethal force unnecessary or at

least a very last resort. None of this of course justifies their

promiscuous use. The majority “tie[s] permissible taser use to

situations that present some exigency that is sufficiently

dangerous to justify the force.” Maj. Op. at 23. But with all

due respect, that abstract formulation will be of less than

limited help to officers wondering what exactly they may and may

not do.

We are told further that the officers, though armed with a

civil commitment order, do not possess the same degree of

latitude with regard to a mentally ill person as with someone

whom there is reason to believe has committed a crime. Id. at

14-15. All well and good, but the majority then notes that

“[m]ental illness, of course, describes a broad spectrum of

conditions and does not dictate the same police response in all

situations.” Id. at 15. Again, what may seem a comforting

appellate nostrum is of limited utility to those faced with

volatile situations far removed from the peaceful confines of

appellate chambers. The majority goes on to note that “in some

circumstances . . . increasing the use of force may . . .

exacerbate the situation.” Id. (internal quotation marks

45
omitted). But what those circumstances are neither my colleagues

nor I can really say.

I finally cannot agree that the plaintiff here posed no

real danger. He certainly posed a danger to himself having been

off medication and engaging in self-destructive behaviors to the

point that his sister was pleading for her brother’s prompt

return to the hospital where he might receive some help. As for

the danger to others, it was hardly unlikely that the plaintiff,

a sizeable and unrestrained individual, would bolt into the

street and cause a traumatic accident for motorists who, if not

themselves injured, would regret the harm inflicted on this

pedestrian for years to come. I say this not to contend that the

case was easy, but that it was hard. The district court rightly

recognized that its intrinsic difficulty afforded no reason to

deliver these officers an unnecessary rebuke.

III.

The majority has left it all up in the air. And its

approach to this case is not without consequence. The great

majority of mentally ill persons pose no serious danger to

themselves or others and the challenge of society is to help

these good people lead more satisfying lives. A smaller subset

of the mentally ill do pose the greatest sort of danger, not

only to themselves but to large numbers of people as the string

of mass shootings in this country will attest.

46
 It is difficult sometimes for even seasoned professionals

to predict which is which, not to mention officers and others

with more limited training. And yet it is important in this area

that law not lose its preventive aspect. It can be heartbreaking

to wait until the damage is done. Delivering vague proclamations

about do’s and don’ts runs the risk of incentivizing officers to

take no action, and in doing so to leave individuals and their

prospective victims to their unhappy fates. Law enforcement will

learn soon enough that sins of omission are generally not

actionable. See Deshaney v. Winnebago Cty. Dep’t of Social

Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989). And in the face of nebulae from

the courts, the natural human reaction will be to desist.

Perhaps this is what we mean to achieve, but over-deterrence

carries its own risks, namely that those who badly need help

will receive no help, and we shall be the poorer for it.

47