Todd Cibulka v. City of Madison, 992 F.3d 633

Todd and Shelly Cibulka, intoxicated after a football-game bar outing, were located by their daughter Emily in downtown Madison; Emily called police expressing concern about her parents' intoxication and safety.
UWPD and MPD officers arrived to perform a welfare check; officers attempted to get the couple home and to locate their parked truck, but Todd and Shelly were evasive and uncooperative.
When Todd stood and moved toward a busy street, officers grabbed him, perceived resistance, and attempted to de-escalate; the encounter culminated in a takedown, linked handcuffs (due to Todd’s size), and arrest for disorderly conduct and resisting an officer.
Todd admitted in deposition that he actively resisted at various points; he later alleged the officers used excessive force (including an asserted choking by a non-defendant officer) and that his arrest was unlawful.
The district court granted summary judgment for the officers on qualified immunity grounds; the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding officers had arguable probable cause and that no clearly established law showed the force used was unconstitutional.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
False arrest: Was there probable cause/arguable probable cause to arrest Todd for disorderly conduct and resisting an officer?	Cibulka: No probable cause; officers created the disturbance and lacked lawful authority to arrest.	Officers: Given the totality of circumstances (intoxication, evasiveness, resisting instructions), a reasonable officer could conclude a crime occurred—thus at least arguable probable cause.	Held: Officers had arguable probable cause; qualified immunity bars the false-arrest claim.
Excessive force: Was the force used so clearly excessive that qualified immunity is unavailable?	Cibulka: Force was excessive and objectively unreasonable; some conduct (e.g., alleged choking) violated clearly established rights.	Officers: Force was ordinary police tactics to prevent harm, effect compliance, and transport a resisting subject; no settled authority made their conduct obviously unconstitutional.	Held: No clearly established right was shown and the conduct was not an obvious constitutional violation; qualified immunity bars the excessive-force claim.

Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (framework for qualified immunity analysis)
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified immunity shields officials unless rights were clearly established)
Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (clarifies "clearly established" standard)
Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765 (standards on force and reasonableness analysis)
Abbott v. Sangamon County, 705 F.3d 706 (probable cause is an absolute defense to § 1983 false-arrest claims)
District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577 (need for controlling authority or robust consensus to overcome qualified immunity)
Leiser v. Kloth, 933 F.3d 696 (Seventh Circuit on when force is "obvious" constitutional violation)