Surat v. Klamser

Summary

In *Surat v. Klamser*, the Tenth Circuit held that an officer's takedown maneuver—slamming a nonviolent misdemeanant face-first into the ground—violated the Fourth Amendment where the arrestee posed no immediate threat and offered only minimal resistance. However, the officer was entitled to qualified immunity because the right was not clearly established at the time of the April 2017 incident; no on-point Supreme Court or published Tenth Circuit precedent placed the unconstitutionality of such force "beyond debate." The court also clarified that the plaintiff's convictions for resisting arrest and obstructing a peace officer did not bar her excessive force claim under *Heck v. Humphrey* to the extent she challenged force used to overcome her resistance, rather than the initial seizure.

Holdings

1. The use of the takedown maneuver to slam to the ground a nonviolent misdemeanant who poses no immediate threat to the officer or others based on minimal resistance to arrest is unreasonable and constitutes excessive force under the Fourth Amendment.
2. The right was not clearly established because no Supreme Court or published Tenth Circuit precedent addressed sufficiently similar facts, and the out-of-circuit and unpublished cases were distinguishable or not binding.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court erred in denying qualified immunity because the force used was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
2. Whether the law was clearly established such that a reasonable officer would know the takedown was unconstitutional.

Disposition

reversed