Patty Jelsma v. Knox County, Tenn., 673 F. App'x 525

Background

On July 28, 2013 Officer Bradley Cox responded to a domestic-disturbance call at the home of Patty Jelsma’s mother; Jelsma stepped outside and began recording with her cell phone.
Jelsma alleges Cox grabbed and forced her to the ground without provocation, causing injuries; Cox arrested her for domestic assault, disorderly conduct, and resisting arrest; charges were later dismissed.
Jelsma sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force and false arrest (and related state claims); Cox and Knox County moved for summary judgment.
The district court granted qualified immunity to Cox on the false-arrest claim but denied summary judgment as to excessive force, finding a triable fact issue and that the right was clearly established.
Cox appealed the denial of qualified immunity interlocutorily, arguing (1) Jelsma’s cellphone video undermines her version of events and (2) he did not violate a clearly established right.
The Sixth Circuit assumed Jelsma’s version of events for purposes of the interlocutory appeal (as required) and affirmed the denial of qualified immunity on the excessive-force claim.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of qualified immunity on excessive-force claim is reviewable on interlocutory appeal	Jelsma: Cox used force without provocation when he forced her to the ground	Cox: Video and facts show compliance issues/justification; appeal should resolve immunity as a matter of law	Court: Must accept plaintiff’s version for jurisdictional review; appeal cannot rest on disputed facts, so review proceeds under Jelsma’s facts and denial is affirmed
Whether Cox violated a constitutional right by using force during arrest	Jelsma: Forcing a non‑resisting person to the ground is excessive force	Cox: His actions were reasonable given perceived noncompliance and possible threat	Court: Under plaintiff’s account, the force would violate the Fourth Amendment; right was violated
Whether the right was "clearly established" at the time of the arrest	Jelsma: Circuit precedent clearly proscribes gratuitous violence against subdued, non‑dangerous suspects	Cox: No clearly established law would have put a reasonable officer on notice	Court: Sixth Circuit precedent made it clear that gratuitous force against subdued/non‑dangerous suspects is unconstitutional; right was clearly established
Whether the cell-phone video conclusively rebuts Jelsma’s account	Jelsma: Video does not show provocation; factual dispute remains	Cox: Video shows noncompliance and turning toward vehicle, supporting use of force	Court: Video is inconclusive; cannot be used to resolve credibility on interlocutory review; factual dispute remains

Key Cases Cited

Phillips v. Roane Cty., 534 F.3d 531 (6th Cir. 2008) (standards for interlocutory appeals of qualified immunity)
Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (1995) (limits on immediate appeals when factual disputes control)
Berryman v. Rieger, 150 F.3d 561 (6th Cir. 1998) (must accept plaintiff’s version of facts for interlocutory immunity appeals)
McKenna v. City of Royal Oak, 469 F.3d 559 (6th Cir. 2006) (appeal jurisdiction lacking when argument depends on disputed facts)
Ashcroft v. al‑Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) (qualified immunity framework; clearly established law requirement)
Shreve v. Jessamine Cty. Fiscal Court, 453 F.3d 681 (6th Cir. 2006) (proscribing gratuitous force against non‑risk suspects)
Harris v. City of Circleville, 583 F.3d 356 (6th Cir. 2009) (clearly established norm against force on subdued, non‑dangerous suspects)
Solomon v. Auburn Hills Police Dep’t, 389 F.3d 167 (6th Cir. 2004) (excessive force standards)
Burchett v. Kiefer, 310 F.3d 937 (6th Cir. 2002) (Fourth Amendment requires least intrusive means reasonably available)
United States v. Sanders, 719 F.2d 882 (6th Cir. 1983) (principle favoring least intrusive detention methods)