Romeo Hennings v. Anthony Milone, 21-1533

Late-night police pursuit: Hennings drove a car matching one used in an earlier armed robbery and led officers on a high-speed chase, sometimes exceeding 100 mph, before crashing into a taxi and injuring occupants.
Milone arrived first at the wreck; fearing the driver might be armed, he approached with his gun drawn and ordered the driver to stop.
Hennings says he placed his hands on the steering wheel to comply; Milone says he could not see the hands because of airbags and observed movement toward the center console and Hennings moving his feet toward the passenger side.
Milone holstered his gun, reached into the driver side, grabbed Hennings by the hair, and punched him while trying to prevent flight; Hennings exclaimed for Milone to stop, broke free through the passenger side, stumbled, and was tackled and handcuffed by other officers.
Hennings sustained injuries (closed head injury, contusions, strained wrist) and sued Milone under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging excessive force; the district court granted summary judgment for Milone based on the video and totality of circumstances.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed, concluding that under the Fourth Amendment the force used was objectively reasonable given the dangerous chase, the possibility Hennings was armed, and Hennings’s resistance/flight.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Milone used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment	Hennings: hair grab and punches were excessive and caused injury	Milone: used proportionate, nondeadly force to prevent flight and protect safety	Affirmed for Milone — force reasonable under totality of circumstances
Whether Hennings had unequivocally surrendered, making force unlawful	Hennings: put hands on steering wheel and yelled stop, showing surrender	Milone: officer could not reasonably know of surrender given movements, obscured view, and attempt to flee	Court: no reasonable jury could find officer knew of surrender; movements justified force
Whether injuries and post-arrest statements bear on reasonableness or show retaliatory intent	Hennings: injuries and Milone’s comment suggest punishment/retaliation and excessive force	Milone: objective reasonableness controls; subjective intent irrelevant; injuries do not show force unreasonable here	Court: injuries considered but do not change objective reasonableness; statements irrelevant to Fourth Amendment inquiry

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (establishes objective-reasonableness Fourth Amendment framework)
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) (limits on deadly force; referenced for force analysis)
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (video evidence can control factual dispute on summary judgment)
Williams v. Brooks, 809 F.3d 936 (7th Cir. 2016) (Seventh Circuit guidance on excessive-force reasonableness)
Turner v. City of Champaign, 979 F.3d 563 (7th Cir. 2020) (applies Graham factors to flight/resistance contexts)
Johnson v. Scott, 576 F.3d 658 (7th Cir. 2009) (genuine surrender can render force excessive)
Dawson v. Brown, 803 F.3d 829 (7th Cir. 2016) (nonmoving party entitled only to reasonable inferences)
Davis v. Clifford, 825 F.3d 1131 (10th Cir. 2016) (contrast: hair-grab unreasonable for minor offense/compliant suspect)
Smith v. Ray, 781 F.3d 95 (4th Cir. 2015) (contrast: force unreasonable where plaintiff was compliant and restrained)
McAllister v. Price, 615 F.3d 877 (7th Cir. 2010) (injuries from force may bear on reasonableness)
Chelios v. Heavener, 520 F.3d 678 (7th Cir. 2008) (discusses relevance of force-related injuries)
Richman v. Sheahan, 512 F.3d 876 (7th Cir. 2008) (officer’s subjective intent irrelevant to Fourth Amendment reasonableness)