William LaPlante v. City of Battle Creek, Mich., 30 F.4th 572

At 2:58 a.m., Officers Ziegler and Kerschen stopped William LaPlante’s vehicle; passenger Robbins was handcuffed after briefly leaving the car. Ziegler approached with a taser drawn.
LaPlante exited holding an open beer can; Ziegler ordered him to show his hands, drop the beer, and put his hands behind his back. The orders occurred in rapid succession over ~30 seconds.
LaPlante raised his hands overhead, moved into a squat/forward posture, and Ziegler then grabbed him and performed a takedown, forcing LaPlante to the ground. Kerschen ran over after securing Robbins and assisted in handcuffing.
LaPlante sustained a dislocated left elbow and small avulsion fracture; later pleaded guilty to OUIL and attempted obstruction in related criminal proceedings.
LaPlante sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force (Ziegler) and failure to intervene (Kerschen). The district court denied qualified immunity for both officers; on appeal the Sixth Circuit affirmed as to Ziegler, reversed as to Kerschen, and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Ziegler used constitutionally excessive force by performing a takedown	LaPlante: raised hands and was not actively resisting; takedown was unreasonable and caused serious injury	Ziegler: LaPlante was uncooperative/posed flight risk; rapid noncompliance justified takedown	Court: Genuine factual disputes about compliance/resistance and force preclude summary judgment for Ziegler; denial of qualified immunity affirmed
Whether Kerschen failed to intervene to prevent excessive force	LaPlante: Kerschen had notice, means, and time (~1+ minute) to intervene but did nothing	Kerschen: lacked sufficient time/opportunity to both perceive and intercede; he rushed over once Robbins was secured	Court: Video and timing show Kerschen did not have a meaningful opportunity to perceive and prevent the takedown; denial of qualified immunity reversed
Whether LaPlante’s Fourth Amendment right was clearly established at the time	LaPlante: law makes clear takedowns on generally compliant or surrendered suspects are unlawful	Ziegler: context (dark street, intoxication, possible flight) made unlawfulness not clearly established	Court: Precedent sufficiently particularized that a reasonable officer would know takedown against a potentially surrendered/compliant suspect could be unlawful; clearly established for Ziegler

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (defining Fourth Amendment excessive force test)
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (video evidence limits permissible disputed factual narratives)
Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (qualified immunity two-step framework)
Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (clearly established law standard)
Baker v. City of Hamilton, 471 F.3d 601 (takedown of a suspect who raised hands can preclude qualified immunity)
Burgess v. Fischer, 735 F.3d 462 (failure-to-intervene requires sufficient opportunity and responsibility)
Gaddis ex rel. Gaddis v. Redford Twp., 364 F.3d 763 (assessing officer conduct in light most favorable to plaintiff)
Godawa v. Byrd, 798 F.3d 457 (qualified immunity and video-evidence guidance)
Harris v. City of Circleville, 583 F.3d 356 (takedown and subsequent force can be excessive)
McCaig v. Raber, [citation="515 F. App'x 551"] (takedown unreasonable where suspect made no aggressive gestures)