Snowden v. Henning, 3:19-cv-01322

Plaintiff Donald V. Snowden was arrested at the Quality Inn Motel in Carbondale, Illinois, by DEA Special Agent Jeremy Henning on September 12, 2019, pursuant to an arrest warrant for serious federal drug charges.
Snowden alleges Agent Henning used excessive force during the arrest in violation of the Fourth Amendment, specifically that Henning punched him multiple times while attempting to subdue and handcuff him.
Most of the arrest was captured on motel lobby surveillance video, but critical events occurred in an office, out of camera range; the court relied on Snowden’s own deposition for those events.
Snowden challenged the admissibility and authenticity of the video evidence, as well as the existence of a potentially missing recording, but the court found the submitted video sufficiently authenticated and found no evidence of missing evidence destruction.
Henning moved for summary judgment, arguing that his use of force was reasonable under the circumstances and that he was entitled to qualified immunity.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of Video Evidence	Chain of custody and potential for alteration make video inadmissible.	Authentication is sufficient; chain of custody verified by agent’s declaration.	Video admitted; sufficiently authenticated, any flaws go to weight not admissibility.
Excessive Force under 4th Amendment	Henning used greater force than necessary, including punches, while Snowden was not actively resisting.	Henning used only necessary force to subdue a suspect resisting arrest where potential danger to officer and others existed.	No reasonable jury could find excessive force; Henning’s actions were objectively reasonable.
Qualified Immunity	Henning’s actions were contrary to clearly established law (citing prior 7th Circuit precedent).	No case law with sufficiently similar facts clearly prohibits Henning’s conduct; Snowden was actively resisting.	Henning entitled to qualified immunity; law not clearly established for these facts.
Missing Video Evidence	Missing in-office video suggests adverse inference against Henning.	No proof such a video existed or that Henning destroyed it; no intentional destruction shown.	No adverse inference drawn; Snowden’s account taken as true for summary judgment.

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (recognizes cause of action for constitutional violations by federal officials)
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (establishes the objective reasonableness test for use of force under the Fourth Amendment)
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (Fourth Amendment's proportionality in use of force)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard focuses on genuine disputes of material fact)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (party moving for summary judgment must show absence of genuine issue of material fact)
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified immunity shields officials unless law was clearly established)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (courts may address either prong of qualified immunity first)
Abbott v. Sangamon County, 705 F.3d 706 (use of significant force is excessive if suspect is subdued and not resisting, but distinguishes facts here)