Keyonte Ashford, Sr. v. Michael Raby, 951 F.3d 798

Background

Ashford led police on a brief high‑speed highway pursuit, stopped after being boxed in by three cruisers, and kept his hands raised but did not exit because his SUV remained in drive and he feared reaching inside would prompt officers to shoot.
Officers repeatedly ordered Ashford to exit; Officer Raby approached, reached through a partially opened window, unlocked the door, and continued ordering him out.
After warnings that a police dog would be deployed, Raby commanded his trained dog Ruger to apprehend Ashford; Ruger lunged twice, failed to latch, then bit Ashford’s left forearm after Raby lowered Ashford’s arm to facilitate the bite and officers pulled him from the vehicle.
Ashford suffered puncture wounds and superficial injuries and was taken to the hospital.
He sued Raby under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment; the district court granted qualified immunity to Raby on summary judgment.
The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that (1) removing Ashford from the vehicle by force was reasonable, (2) deploying the police dog was not clearly unlawful under existing precedent, and (3) Raby did not unreasonably prolong the canine bite such that the right was clearly established.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was it reasonable to use force to remove Ashford from the vehicle?	Ashford argued the use of force was unnecessary because he was cooperative (hands up) and had offered to let officers park/shut off the vehicle.	Raby argued removal was reasonable because Ashford had driven erratically, refused lawful orders, and posed risks while remaining in a running vehicle.	Court: Reasonable from officer’s perspective; seizure to remove him was permissible.
Was deploying a police dog to effect the seizure excessive?	Ashford contended sending an 80‑lb dog was disproportionate and caused unnecessary injuries.	Raby argued using the dog reduced risk to officers compared to physically entering or grabbing a suspect beside a running vehicle.	Court: Deployment was not plainly incompetent; no binding precedent clearly prohibited similar canine use.
Did Raby unreasonably prolong force by allowing continued bites after Ashford was subdued?	Ashford claimed Ruger bit him repeatedly after he was pinned and no longer resisting.	Raby pointed to video showing he controlled Ruger and gave the release command within a few seconds after Ashford hit the pavement.	Court: Video showed prompt control and release within seconds; not an excessive‑force violation, nor clearly established as such.
Is Raby entitled to qualified immunity?	Ashford argued his Fourth Amendment rights were violated and that the unlawfulness was clearly established.	Raby argued that, even if force was excessive, existing precedent did not put the illegality beyond debate.	Court: Qualified immunity affirmed because no controlling precedent clearly established unlawfulness in these circumstances.

Key Cases Cited

Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (video evidence can control disputed factual claims at summary judgment)
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (Fourth Amendment reasonableness standard for force)
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified immunity and fair‑notice standard)
District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577 (clearly established law requires that precedent make illegality beyond debate)
Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305 (qualified immunity and on‑the‑spot decisionmaking)
Dunn v. Matatall, 549 F.3d 348 (seizure of driver after flight approved)
Campbell v. City of Springboro, 700 F.3d 779 (canine use unreasonable where dog poorly trained and attacked without command)
Dunigan v. Noble, 390 F.3d 486 (no Fourth Amendment violation for certain canine deployments)
Edwards v. Shanley, 666 F.3d 1289 (Eleventh Circuit denied immunity for prolonged canine attack lasting several minutes)
Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148 (warning against defining clearly established law at high level of generality)