Driving Milwaukee, Romeo whose just seen robbery, led high speed chase. arrested crashing several people, foot. arresting officer, Anthony U.S.C. § alleging excessive he and punched Hennings to stop him fleeing. The entered for Milone, concluding the Given the (reckless driving) serious, Milone to believe Hennings armed, and Hennings resist and flee, and affirm.

Late night, joined the pursuit Hennings driving car the description been in robbery hour earlier. Police cameras captured and Hennings fled the speeds sometimes over miles per hour until he crashed into taxi, some occupants. and his partner were arrive wreck. ran toward while his partner chased after another person running crash. Suspecting driver approached car’s side with his gun drawn, yelling “going shoot.” Hennings swears response, his show compliance. counters see Hennings’s car’s airbags, though move toward center console. Regardless, within seconds, Hennings were outside passenger side door—opposite Milone. Fearing Hennings flee, holstered his gun, reached driver’s side, and Hennings his hair, yelling officers help. scuffle next few seconds, told Hennings and tried pull him driver’s side holding his him head. said stop.” After about seconds, Hennings broke free bolted car’s side. stumbled, another officer took him ground.

After struggle ground, arrested. says feared his safety encounter handcuffed exclaiming, alleged handcuffs were on.” The officers kept pinned ground until about minute later, couldn’t breathe severe asthma. One turned him coach breathing; afterward another group took squad car. later taken hospital treated aftermath. The included blunt trauma abdomen, closed head injury, chest contusions, strained wrist. asserting excessive violation rights. entered 21 1533 3 ruling that as a matter law was It relied on video recordings—which showed that nondeadly restrain a fleeing suspect believed had endangered others. appeals, but we agree that reasonable jury use was unreasonable under circumstances. Williams v. Brooks , 936, 2016). assesses looking including: (1) seriousness issue, (2) whether suspect poses a threat (Hennings contest reasonably believed was armed), (3) resisting fleeing v. Connor U.S. 386, (1989) Tennessee Garner (1985)). Based standard undisputed facts, reasonable: responding a dangerous a possible robbery; reasonably thought armed; ready again. id.; Turner City Champaign replies a reasonable unreasonable because, view, twice demonstrated surrender. asserts so placed steering as came car; second time, stated, stop,” window. display genuine surrender can render excessive, Johnson Scott 2009), but reasonable position know surrendering. First, even if credit account wheel, video recording shows also moved away ruling judgment, must view disputed facts light favorable nonmoving party, but considers “the light depicted videotape.” Scott Harris (2007); Williams recording thus shows legitimate fear far surrendering, run away. cry “stop” simply protest acquiescence it. Thus, finding knew surrendering unreasonable facts. Dawson Brown (nonmoving party entitled inferences).

We not force briefly during fast paced events—grabbing hair him— unreasonable. likely committed serious offense (recklessly driving), be be Milone’s quick decision grab reachable, non threatening part of quell protect himself others, prevent flight not unreasonable. Graham 396. case, thus, differs from those involving hair grabbing where offense minor harmless, compliant, or already restrained. Davis Clifford (10th Cir. 2016) (reversing grant motion judgment who, response suspended ‐ license offense, out window hair); Smith Ray 2015) (affirming denial where ripped plaintiff’s she compliant handcuffed). argues district erred not considering two sets believes are relevant force excessive. severity injuries. arise may relevant reasonableness force. McAllister Price Chelios Heavener 2008)). But ignore injuries; rather, listed considered them, then correctly ruled objectively based including injuries. Furthermore, does identify which resulted crash, opposed itself. Finally, although argues on” handcuffs, evidence suggests any injury arose cuffs. argues assess reasonableness force, needed consider post statement Hennings: contends infer statement like retaliatory. But Amendment, officer’s subjective intent using irrelevant

“[o]nly matters.” Richman Sheahan Because compels conclusion reasonable, matter. considered none has merit.

AFFIRMED

[*] agreed decide case without oral argument briefs adequately present legal oral argument significantly aid court. F ED R. PP P. 34(a)(2)(C).