Tucker v. City of Shreveport, 998 F.3d 165

Background:

Tucker was stopped for a defective brake light on November 30, 2016; vehicle stop escalated after he drove into a residential driveway instead of immediately pulling over.
Officers Cisco and McIntire confronted Tucker; Cisco ordered him to put his hands behind his back; body‑worn/vehicle cameras and audio recorded the encounter.
McIntire arrived and immediately pulled/took Tucker to the ground (face striking pavement); while prone, multiple officers punched and McIntire kicked Tucker as officers attempted to handcuff him.
Tucker contends he was compliant or only verbally passive‑resistant and that the takedown and subsequent blows were excessive; officers contend he was agitated, tensing/pulling his arms away, kicking, and presented officer‑safety concerns.
The district court denied summary judgment on individual‑capacity excessive‑force claims (finding fact issues) but granted official‑capacity immunity; officers appealed interlocutorily on qualified immunity grounds.
The Fifth Circuit majority reversed the district court and held officers entitled to qualified immunity as to both the takedown and the force used on the ground; Judge Higginson dissented.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the sudden takedown violated clearly established Fourth Amendment law	Tucker: takedown was unprovoked; he was compliant or only verbally passive‑resistant, so violently slamming him down was unconstitutional	Officers: scene was tense, Tucker was agitated, moving/tensing his arms, had driven into a residential area, and officers reasonably perceived flight/weapon/crowd risk	QI applies: officers reasonably could disagree; precedent did not clearly proscribe the takedown under the specific facts, so summary judgment for officers reversed to grant immunity
Whether the punches/kicks while Tucker was on the ground violated clearly established law	Tucker: striking and kicking a prone, unarmed suspect is excessive and violates clearly established rights	Officers: Tucker kicked and pulled his arms under his body, actively resisted while prone; strikes/kicks were measured to gain compliance and ceased before he was subdued	QI applies: plaintiff did not allege force continued after subdual; evidence shows active resistance on ground and officers reasonably perceived need for force, so officers entitled to immunity
Standard of appellate review when video/audio exist	Tucker: video doesn't resolve disputed facts; inferences should be drawn for non‑movant	Officers: where record (video/audio) does not blatantly contradict officers’ account, courts may view facts as depicted on tape	Held: appellate review limited to materiality of disputes; Scott v. Harris controls that blatantly contradicted allegations are not credited; the majority relied on the officers’ perceivable facts and reasonableness standard

Key Cases Cited

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (sets objective‑reasonableness test for Fourth Amendment excessive‑force claims)
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (video can rebut plaintiff’s version when it blatantly contradicts plaintiff’s account)
White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548 (2017) (existing precedent must place constitutional question beyond debate for clearly established rule)
Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765 (2014) (qualified immunity requires that the contours of the right be sufficiently definite)
Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148 (2018) (specificity in excessive‑force precedent is especially important)
Darden v. City of Fort Worth, 880 F.3d 722 (5th Cir. 2018) (denial of qualified immunity where brutal force on non‑compliant/decedent arrestee was disputed)
Deville v. Marcantel, 567 F.3d 156 (5th Cir. 2009) (passive verbal resistance does not justify violent force)
Newman v. Guedry, 703 F.3d 757 (5th Cir. 2012) (immediate, repeated high‑force responses like multiple tasings/strikes were objectively unreasonable)
Bush v. Strain, 513 F.3d 492 (5th Cir. 2008) (force against a subdued/handcuffed suspect is excessive)