42 USC § 1983; Fourth Amendment; Excessive force; Qualified immunity; Clearly established right; Physical force against nonresisting suspect; Disorderly conduct; Front porch encounter; Graham v Connor; Coffey v Carroll; Gambrel v Knox Cnty

The court held that defendant-officer was not entitled to qualified immunity because a jury could find he used excessive force in violation of clearly established Fourth Amendment law. Plaintiff sued under § 1983, alleging that the officer slammed open a gate into him, drove him to the ground, and punched him twice while plaintiff stood on his front porch during an investigation into a neighbor’s missing insulin pump. The district court denied qualified immunity to the officer. On appeal, the court held that the alleged facts would support a Fourth Amendment violation because plaintiff’s alleged offense, disorderly conduct on his porch, “was not serious,” he posed no imminent threat while separated from the officer by an iron gate, and he was not told he was under arrest before the officer used force. The court also held that the right was clearly established because Sixth Circuit caselaw had long provided that a suspect has the right “to be free from the use of physical force” when not resisting apprehension. It rejected the officer’s argument that the cited cases involved different force, reasoning that the issue was “the illegality of any physical force, not its calibration.” Affirmed.