Excessive force claim under 42 USC § 1983; Qualified immunity; Whether the officers violated “clearly established law” by forcibly handcuffing an individual; Failure to notify him that he was under arrest; Whether arguments were forfeited

[This appeal was from the ED-MI.] The court reversed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to defendants-officers where plaintiff failed to cite a similar case involving an officer’s response to an individual resisting attempts to handcuff him. As a result, plaintiff could not establish a violation of “clearly established law.” Plaintiff is the legal guardian of Derek Aaron, an autistic individual. When police tried to arrest Derek for home invasion and a violent robbery at a gas station, he pulled his hands away and refused to place them behind his back for cuffing. After issuing verbal threats and grabbing his arms, the officers took him to the ground. All charges against Derek were eventually dropped. Plaintiff sued under § 1983 for excessive force. The officers unsuccessfully moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. On appeal, the court held that plaintiff failed to establish that the officers violated Derek’s “clearly established” constitutional rights and thus, was unable to satisfy the third prong of the qualified immunity analysis. The court noted that Derek was a “large man (6'4'' and 280 pounds).” Further, the officers had probable cause to arrest him “(1) for an assault at the Sunoco gas station of a customer and robbery of him and (2) for a break-in of a nearby home.” The court concluded that given his “size, the violent nature of the crimes, and the recency of each of them, the police had ample reason to perform the arrest with several officers.” In addition, Derek “tensed his body and locked his arms to prevent the officers from pulling his hands behind his back. Even after [they] took him to the ground and one of them kneed him in the side, he struggled against the officers to keep his hands in front of his body.” The court held that in “the context of the serious crimes at issue, the officers did not violate any clearly established law when they responded to” his active resistance. It rejected plaintiff’s reliance on the officers’ failure to tell Derek he was under arrest for the crimes in question. “While it may be good practice to tell a suspect that he is under arrest at the outset of an encounter, particularly where the police deny a suspect a reasonable chance to comply, or the arrest concerns a minor crime,” the court knew of no authority requiring “such notice during an arrest for two violent felonies where the officers gave the suspect ample time to comply with their orders.”