McCowan v. Morales, 945 F.3d 1276

Late-night traffic stop for driving without headlights; McCowan exhibited signs of intoxication and admitted recent drinking but told Officer Moralez he had a prior neck/shoulder injury and pending SSDI claim.
McCowan performed poorly on field sobriety tests and was arrested, handcuffed behind his back, and placed unbelted in the caged rear seat of the patrol car for a 0.8-mile, ~2-minute drive to the station.
McCowan says Moralez drove recklessly despite McCowan’s pleas to slow down, repeatedly tossing McCowan in the back seat and re-injuring his shoulder.
At the station McCowan was handcuffed to a bench, repeatedly complained of “excruciating” shoulder pain and requested front handcuffing or loosened cuffs but was denied; when assisted to stand he alleges his shoulders audibly tore; no medical care was provided until transfer to the county detention center.
McCowan later underwent two shoulder surgeries and incurred substantial medical bills; he sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. At summary judgment the district court denied Officer Moralez qualified immunity on two claims (excessive force and deliberate indifference); Moralez appealed interlocutorily and the Tenth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Excessive-force ("rough ride") under Fourth Amendment	Moralez placed a handcuffed, unbelted, compliant misdemeanant in the rear cage and drove recklessly, re-injuring a disclosed shoulder condition	No controlling precedent on reckless driving as force; conduct at most negligent or unlike prior cases	Court: Sufficient Fourth Amendment violation; Tenth Circuit precedent made gratuitous force against restrained, compliant misdemeanants clearly established; qualified immunity denied
Deliberate indifference to medical needs (delay at station) under Fourteenth Amendment	McCowan repeatedly told officers he re-injured his shoulder and endured hours of severe pain while Moralez delayed care; delay was objectively serious and officers were subjectively aware	Moralez lacked independent verification; delay was brief and plaintiff cannot prove delay caused long-term harm	Court: Objective (substantial pain) and subjective (officer knew and disregarded) prongs met; Olsen/Sealock-style precedent put officer on notice; qualified immunity denied

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (objective-reasonableness test for Fourth Amendment excessive force)
Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389 (objective standard for excessive-force claims by pretrial detainees)
McCoy v. Meyers, 887 F.3d 1034 (10th Cir. 2018) (post-restraint gratuitous force unconstitutional; establishes that restraint adds to officer’s duty)
Weigel v. Broad, 544 F.3d 1143 (10th Cir. 2008) (force against subdued drunk-driving suspect unreasonable and clearly established)
Casey v. City of Federal Heights, 509 F.3d 1278 (10th Cir. 2007) (force against nonviolent misdemeanant not justified; clearly established)
Dixon v. Richer, 922 F.2d 1456 (10th Cir. 1991) (force against non-threatening, nonresisting individual unreasonable)
Olsen v. Layton Hills Mall, 312 F.3d 1304 (10th Cir. 2002) (arrestee’s reported medical distress can satisfy objective and subjective prongs for denial of care)
Sealock v. Colorado, 218 F.3d 1205 (10th Cir. 2000) (delay in treatment causing several hours of severe pain can satisfy deliberate-indifference objective element)
Estate of Ceballos v. Husk, 919 F.3d 1204 (10th Cir. 2019) (qualified immunity two-step framework and Tenth Circuit approach to clearly established law)