Background
Covington police officers Steven Willis and Mandie Appleman went to Melvin Steger’s home after a neighbor reported that Steger had stolen her insulin pump. Steger stood on his porch behind an iron gate, denied taking the pump, and began recording the officers. He became agitated, refused to provide identification, told the officers to obtain a warrant, and shouted an obscenity at Willis.
According to the evidence viewed in Steger’s favor, Willis immediately slammed the gate into Steger, stepped onto the porch, grabbed him, and drove him to the ground without first announcing an arrest or giving a warning. Steger testified that Willis also punched him twice while the officers handcuffed him face-down. Steger was charged with several offenses and later convicted of theft. He sued the officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force, and the district court denied Willis qualified immunity at summary judgment.
The Court’s Holding
The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Viewing the record in Steger’s favor, a reasonable jury could find that Willis violated the Fourth Amendment. Steger’s suspected disorderly conduct was not serious, an iron gate separated him from Willis, he made no attempt to leave the porch, and he posed no imminent threat. Nor had he been told that he was under arrest or given an opportunity to submit before Willis used force.
The court also held that the violation was clearly established. Sixth Circuit precedent had long put officers on notice that they may not use physical force against a person who is not resisting apprehension and poses no safety risk. Because the alleged circumstances prohibited any physical force—not merely a particular degree or type of force—Willis could not obtain qualified immunity by distinguishing earlier cases involving pepper spray rather than a takedown and punches.
Key Takeaways
- An officer may violate the Fourth Amendment by using physical force without warning against a person who is neither resisting nor posing an immediate threat.
- When precedent clearly prohibits any force under the circumstances, a plaintiff need not identify a prior case involving the exact same tactic.
- At summary judgment, the court accepted Steger’s account where the body-camera footage did not clearly contradict it.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the Sixth Circuit’s rule that gratuitous force against a nonresisting, nonthreatening person is clearly unconstitutional. The qualified-immunity inquiry does not always demand a precedent involving precisely the same physical maneuver when existing law already makes clear that no force was justified.
The ruling does not finally determine that Willis used excessive force. It allows Steger’s claim against Willis to proceed because a jury could find facts establishing a clearly established Fourth Amendment violation.