O'MALLEY v. City of Flint, 652 F.3d 662

Hagler, as Acting Chief of Police for Flint, followed a blue Tahoe similar to a Michigan State Police vehicle in an unmarked car.
The Tahoe had MSP-like features: large antenna, push-bar, 'Call 911' decals, red rear lights, tinted window, and '47' on the tailgate.
The MSP desk indicated no MSP vehicle matched the Tahoe’s description or plate; the Tahoe entered a residential driveway.
O'Malley, the Tahoe’s occupant, exited and approached the house; Hagler parked behind the Tahoe and identified himself as a police officer.
O'Malley stated he was a security guard with a CCW permit and had a handgun in the Tahoe; Hagler asked to keep hands in view and to speak.
Hagler handcuffed O'Malley for safety and to investigate occupancy and permit validity; LEIN check and ownership verification followed; a Warren arrest warrant was noted, leading Hagler to detain O'Malley for about two hours until it was learned there were no warrants.
O'Malley complained his handcuffs were too tight, but Hagler was unaware of this request and O'Malley was released after Warren’s error was discovered.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Hagler's initial encounter was a seizure needing reasonable suspicion.	O'Malley contends the driveway blocking and approach were seizure.	Hagler argues the encounter was consensual or, if seized, justified by Terry.	Hagler entitled to qualified immunity for the initial encounter.
Whether handcuffing/detaining and searching the Tahoe violated Fourth Amendment.	O'Malley asserts unlawful detention and intrusive search.	Hagler acted for safety and investigatory purposes under Terry.	Hagler entitled to qualified immunity for handcuffing, detention, and search.
Whether Hagler's handcuffing amounted to excessive force.	O'Malley claims overly tight handcuffs caused injury.	Reasonable officer could detain for safety; no obvious injury; short duration.	Hagler entitled to qualified immunity; no clearly established violation.

Smoak v. Hall, 460 F.3d 768 (6th Cir. 2006) (Fourth Amendment seizures require seizure to be justified by facts conveying restraint.)
Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980) (Consensual encounters not seizures unless not free to leave.)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (Permits brief investigatory stops on reasonable suspicion.)
See, 574 F.3d 309 (6th Cir. 2009) (Blocking a car to determine occupants constitutes a Terry seizure.)
Gross, 624 F.3d 309 (6th Cir. 2011) (Expansion of See; blocking support for Terry stop analysis.)
See v. United States, See (no change) (2009) (See discusses blocking as seizure.)
Lyons v. City of Xenia, 417 F.3d 565 (6th Cir. 2005) (Excessive handcuffing standards in Fourth Amendment context.)
Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987) (Clearly established rights analysis for qualified immunity.)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (Modifies Saucier sequence for qualified-immunity analysis.)
Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (Two-step qualified-immunity inquiry (not mandatory sequence now).)