Charles Kowolonek v. Les Moore, 463 F. App'x 531

Investigated a burglary-in-progress call at Kowolonek’s residence; dispatcher described a Puerto Rican male in a gray shirt with short hair, possibly with an accomplice.
Moore arrived, approached Kowolonek, and asked for identification; Kowolonek claimed he lived there but had no ID and resisted by lighting a cigarette.
Moore cuffed Kowolonek’s left wrist after he turned away and confronted the officer near the house.
Other officers arrived, surrounding Kowolonek; his mother and girlfriend were present attempting to identify him and confirm residency.
Kowolonek alleged a taser was used during the encounter, followed by handcuffing and brief detention in a cruiser; he was released after about five minutes.
The district court granted summary judgment to the officers on § 1983 claims (false detention/excessive force) and denied Kowolonek’s partial summary judgment; the court held no taser use evidence supported a dispute.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the initial detention violated Terry v. Ohio.	Kowolonek claims the stop was unlawful.	Moore had reasonable suspicion based on the 911 description.	Initial stop was proper under Terry.
Whether handcuffing and brief cruiser detention were reasonable under Terry.	Detention was excessive and coercive.	Detention was limited in time and tailored to dispel suspicion.	Handcuffing/detention did not violate Terry; qualified immunity remains.
Whether the officers’ actions violated clearly established law, defeating qualified immunity.	Rights clearly established; conduct unlawful.	No clearly established right was violated by these facts.	Officers entitled to qualified immunity on these facts.
Whether taser use, if any, constituted excessive force.	A taser was used; force was excessive.	Record shows no admissible evidence identifying the taser user; no genuine issue.	Summary judgment affirmed for taser defendants; cannot determine which officer used taser based on record.
Whether a duty to intervene to stop excessive force existed.	Officers could have intervened to prevent taser use.	No feasible opportunity to intervene given rapid sequence of events.	No failure-to-intervene liability; insufficient opportunity to intercede.

Smoak v. Hall, 460 F.3d 768 (6th Cir. 2006) (handcuffing/detention may be reasonable under Terry depending on circumstances)
Foster v. Wellman, 376 F.3d 577 (6th Cir. 2004) (limits of reasonable detention under Terry; split-second judgments)
Houston v. Clark Cnty. Sheriff Deputy John Does 1-5, 174 F.3d 809 (6th Cir. 1999) (armed-suspect concern can justify handcuffing and car detention)
Radvanski v. City of Olmstead Falls, 395 F.3d 291 (6th Cir. 2005) (handcuffing reasonable where suspect potentially armed and dangerous)
Caruthers v.468, 458 F.3d 458 (6th Cir. 2006) (flight risk supports limited detention under Terry)
Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (two-step qualified immunity analysis (clearly established rights))
Dorsey v. Barber, 517 F.3d 389 (6th Cir. 2008) (courts should not second-guess on-scene split-second judgments)
Bennett v. City of Eastpointe, 410 F.3d 810 (6th Cir. 2005) (detention when no flight or weapon present may be excessive under Terry)