Betts v. Brennan, 21-30101

Officer Ross Brennan stopped Timothy Betts for speeding; the encounter lasted about four minutes and was captured on bodycam (no factual dispute).
Betts repeatedly disputed the stop, refused orders to move to the back of his truck, accused Brennan of lying, batted Brennan’s hand away, warned Brennan to call backup, and dared him to use his taser.
Brennan escalated through verbal commands, warnings, and a brief grasp of Betts’s arm; after repeated noncompliance and warnings, Brennan deployed his taser once, striking Betts in the upper leg.
Betts fell, was handcuffed, later pled guilty to resisting arrest, and sued Brennan under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force.
The district court denied qualified immunity, finding the tasing objectively unreasonable and relying on Hanks v. Rogers; the Fifth Circuit reviewed de novo and reversed, granting qualified immunity.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Brennan’s single taser deployment violated the Fourth Amendment (excessive force)	Betts: tasing was excessive because stop was for a minor traffic offense and he was at most passively resisting	Brennan: tasing was a measured, proportional response after repeated commands, warnings, and limited physical resistance	The court: No Fourth Amendment violation; Betts’ repeated noncompliance and confrontational conduct justified a single tase to effect arrest
Whether the law was clearly established such that qualified immunity should be denied	Betts: Hanks and related precedent clearly established that an abrupt use of force on a nonthreatening, minimally resisting motorist is unlawful	Brennan: Hanks is distinguishable on key facts (compliance, lack of physical resistance, lack of warning) so it did not place the law beyond debate	The court: Not clearly established; Hanks materially differs, so qualified immunity applies

Hanks v. Rogers, 853 F.3d 738 (5th Cir. 2017) (denying immunity where officer abruptly used force against minimally resisting motorist)
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1989) (objective-reasonableness Fourth Amendment framework for force)
Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650 (U.S. 2014) (summary-judgment review must credit video where it contradicts plaintiff’s version)
Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148 (U.S. 2018) (need for specificity to clearly establish excessive-force rules)
District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577 (U.S. 2018) (clearly established prong requires that every reasonable official would understand the conduct violates law)
Joseph ex rel. Estate of Joseph v. Bartlett, 981 F.3d 319 (5th Cir. 2020) (assessing force by relationship between need and amount used; measured, ascending response principle)
Cloud v. Stone, 993 F.3d 379 (5th Cir. 2021) (taser use analyzed with attention to whether suspect actively resisted)
Deville v. Marcantel, 567 F.3d 156 (5th Cir. 2009) (officer’s abrupt, forceful extraction from vehicle can be excessive when suspect poses no threat)
Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (U.S. 2011) (qualified immunity requires precedent placing constitutional question beyond debate)