Background
In July 2020, Cornelius Phelps and other members of the Ghost of George Floyd set up a table near a Saginaw Fraternal Order of Police lodge to discuss police brutality. Police officers, believing the group was trespassing, ordered them to leave. When Phelps disputed the property boundary and said he lacked identification, officers attempted to handcuff him, forced him to the ground, and repeatedly ordered him to place his hands behind his back.
After Phelps sat on the ground facing the officers with his open hands raised, Officer Terrance Moore tased him four times in roughly 35 seconds. Phelps was charged with trespassing, resisting arrest, and obstruction; he was acquitted of trespassing, and the remaining charges were dismissed. Phelps then brought federal civil-rights and state-law claims. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants except on the excessive-force and related state-law claims against Moore, concluding that factual disputes precluded qualified immunity. Moore appealed.
The Court’s Holding
A divided Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of qualified immunity on the excessive-force claim. Viewing the evidence in Phelps’s favor, as required at summary judgment, the majority held that a reasonable jury could find that he was suspected only of minor offenses, posed no immediate safety threat, and was not actively resisting when Moore deployed the taser. His failure to place his hands behind his back, while he remained seated with his open hands raised, could constitute passive noncompliance rather than active resistance. The jury also could attribute his movements after the initial shock to the taser’s effects and find that Moore gave him insufficient time to comply between deployments.
The court further held that by July 2020 it was clearly established in the Sixth Circuit that police could not tase a person who posed no safety threat and was not actively resisting, including someone who had ceased any earlier resistance. It therefore affirmed and remanded for further proceedings. Moore forfeited appellate review of the state-law assault-and-battery claim by presenting no argument about it. Judge Thapar dissented, reasoning that Phelps’s physical struggle, repeated refusal to obey commands, and loose handcuff made Moore’s use of the taser reasonable—or, at minimum, not contrary to clearly established law.
Key Takeaways
- Refusing to present one’s hands for cuffing, without additional physical or verbal defiance, may amount only to passive resistance and does not necessarily justify using a taser.
- Earlier resistance does not automatically justify later force after a suspect has ceased actively resisting.
- Repeated taser deployments may be excessive when shocks impair the suspect’s ability to comply and officers provide insufficient recovery time between deployments.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the Sixth Circuit’s distinction between active resistance and passive noncompliance in taser cases. Officers must assess the suspect’s conduct and threat at the time force is used, while considering the entire encounter; prior resistance does not create continuing authority to use significant force after that resistance ends.
The ruling does not establish Moore’s liability. It holds only that, on Phelps’s version of the disputed facts, a reasonable jury could find a violation of clearly established Fourth Amendment law, so the excessive-force claim must proceed beyond summary judgment.