Diane Meirthew v. Robert Amore, 417 F. App'x 494

Meirthew was intoxicated and detained after police entered her home under a search warrant.
During booking at the police station, Amore led Meirthew to a wall and, with others present, restrained her while she refused to spread her feet.
Amore used an arm-bar takedown on Meirthew, who was handcuffed and unarmed, causing facial injuries and bleeding.
The incident was captured on a video recording with poor quality; Meirthew was later treated for facial injuries.
Meirthew was charged with several offenses; plea negotiations resolved some charges through a no-contest plea to three counts.
The district court denied Amore’s summary-judgment motion on qualified immunity, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Amore’s arm-bar takedown in the booking room violated the Fourth Amendment.	Meirthew contends the force was excessive given her restrained, unarmed state.	Amore argues the force was reasonable under Graham v. Connor given the circumstances.	Excessive force issue remains for trial; material facts in dispute.
Whether the alleged Fourth Amendment violation was clearly established such that qualified immunity does not apply.	The right was clearly established; significant force on a restrained suspect is unlawful.	No clearly established rule at the time precluded the conduct.	Violation was clearly established; Amore not entitled to qualified immunity.
Do the Graham v. Connor factors collectively support a finding of excessive force in this booking-room takedown?	All factors point to excessive force given lack of immediate threat and low-severity crime.	Factor analysis could support reasonableness under on-the-spot judgment.	All factors favor finding excessive force.

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1989) (reasonableness standard for excessive force; totality of circumstances)
Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (U.S. 2001) (two-tier qualified-immunity inquiry; now modified by Pearson)
Pearson v. Callahan, 129 S. Ct. 808 (U.S. 2009) (courts may decide which prong to address first)
Livermore ex rel. Rohm v. Lubelan, 476 F.3d 397 (6th Cir. 2007) (two-tier inquiry; officer protection if not clearly established)
Harris v. City of Circleville, 583 F.3d 356 (6th Cir. 2009) (clearly established norm against violent force on subdued suspects)
Griffith v. Coburn, 473 F.3d 650 (6th Cir. 2007) (unreasonable to use significant force on restrained suspect with no safety threat)
Shreve v. Jessamine Cnty. Fiscal Court, 453 F.3d 681 (6th Cir. 2006) (passive resistance does not justify significant force)
Smoak v. Hall, 460 F.3d 768 (6th Cir. 2006) (knocking down a defenseless plaintiff can be excessive)
Rohrbough v. Hall, 586 F.3d 582 (8th Cir. 2009) (fact-specific Graham analysis re: excessive force)
Morrison v. Bd. of Trs. of Green Twp., 583 F.3d 394 (6th Cir. 2009) (reiteration that post-incarceration force on subdued suspect is excessive)