A Neck-Hold Is Not Clearly-Established Excessive Force

This § 1983 lawsuit was filed against a police officer after a confrontation during a traffic stop in which the plaintiff resisted compliance. Despite the district court denying the officer’s motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, the Sixth Circuit reversed the decision, ruling that the officer did not violate any clearly established Fourth Amendment rights. The court noted that while excessive force cannot be used on non-violent suspects, the level of force applied in this case, including grabbing the plaintiff’s arm and holding her head down briefly, did not meet the threshold for excessive force.

The plaintiff was stopped by Officer Wilson for speeding. She refused to show her ID and moved her hands to the center console where the officer could not see them. In response, Officer Wilson ordered her out of the vehicle, then tried to open the driver’s side door, which was locked. Officer Wilson reached through the window to grab the plaintiff’s arm and ordered her to shut the car off. The plaintiff leaned away from the officer and refused to turn off the car. Officer Wilson opened the door from the inside then grabbed the plaintiff’s arm, and she tried to twist away from him. Officer Wilson called for back-up but pulled the plaintiff’s arm out of the car with one hand and held her neck down with the other. The plaintiff continued to struggle. Backup officers arrived, and the plaintiff was taken into custody. Eventually, all charged were dropped against the plaintiff. 

The incident resulted in a § 1983 lawsuit against Officer Wilson. The district court denied Officer Wilson’s motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, concluding that a jury could determine he violated the plaintiff’s well-established Fourth Amendment rights.

In reviewing qualified immunity, the Sixth Circuit found that in this matter, the officer did not violate a clearly established right. The court cited to the principle that an officer may not subdue a non-violent, non-resisting or only passively resisting suspect with physical force, such as Tasing, pepper-spraying or beating them. In contrast, the court also considered that if an arrestee kicks, flails and wriggles away from an arresting officer’s grasp, then the officer may use a Taser to restrain him. 

In finding that it was not clearly established that Officer Wilson used excessive force in grabbing the plaintiff’s arm and holding her head down for two minutes, the court found that this force is much less than those cases that permit the use of Tasing. Nor did the court find that these holds would have been excessive force had there been aligned case law that clearly established the right. 

_{Case Law Alerts, 2nd Quarter, April 2025 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}