Wilkins v. City of Tulsa, 33 F.4th 1265

On Feb. 5, 2017, three Tulsa officers found Ira Lee Wilkins asleep in a running car; officers smelled alcohol, ordered him out, handcuffed him, and began a search.
Officers forced Wilkins to the ground during the search; he was face-down, handcuffed, and held by officers for ~30 seconds before being sprayed with oleoresin capsicum (pepper spray).
Wilkins repeatedly pleaded that he was not resisting; video evidence did not blatantly contradict his account that he was subdued when sprayed.
Wilkins was charged with assault on an officer, actual physical control while intoxicated, and resisting arrest; the charges were later dismissed.
He sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force and asserted Monell claims against the City for failure to train and ratification; the district court granted summary judgment to officers and the City.
The Tenth Circuit reversed as to the officers and remanded the municipal claim, holding a reasonable jury could find the pepper-spray use excessive and that the law was clearly established.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether officers used excessive force (takedown and pepper-spray)	Wilkins: pepper-spray was additional force used after he was effectively subdued and thus unreasonable	Officers: takedown and spray were reasonable because Wilkins continued to move/resist and posed a safety risk	Court: A jury could find the takedown arguable but the pepper-spray was unreasonable once Wilkins was subdued; disputed facts must be viewed for plaintiff on summary judgment
Whether officers are entitled to qualified immunity	Wilkins: precedent clearly established that using force on a subdued suspect violates the Fourth Amendment	Officers: reasonable officers would not have known spray was unlawful given perceived resistance/safety concerns	Court: Law was clearly established (Weigel, Perea, Emmett, McCoy); officers not entitled to qualified immunity
Municipal (Monell) liability for City of Tulsa	Wilkins: City failed to train and ratified unconstitutional conduct	City: No underlying constitutional violation, so no municipal liability	Court: Reversed district court’s grant to City and remanded to evaluate Monell elements because a constitutional violation could be found

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (objective-reasonableness/Graham factors for excessive force)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity two-prong framework)
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (video evidence can displace a plaintiff’s version if it blatantly contradicts)
Weigel v. Broad, 544 F.3d 1143 (10th Cir. 2008) (continued force on subdued, face-down, restrained suspect unconstitutional)
Perea v. Baca, 817 F.3d 1198 (10th Cir. 2016) (tasing a suspect after he was effectively subdued violated Fourth Amendment)
Emmett v. Armstrong, 973 F.3d 1127 (10th Cir. 2020) (using a taser shortly after suspect ceased resisting was excessive)
McCoy v. Meyers, 887 F.3d 1034 (10th Cir. 2018) (force on effectively subdued individuals violates Fourth Amendment)
Lombardo v. City of St. Louis, 141 S. Ct. 2239 (2021) (reaffirming objective-reasonableness inquiry)