Sixth Circuit
Byrne v. Bero, No. CIV. 13-15118, 2015 WL 3476956, at *8 (E.D. Mich. June 2, 2015) (holding that pre-2013 caselaw clearly established that an arm-bar takedown was excessive force on a suspect who failed to immediately obey an officer’s commands and asked “why am I being arrested?”).
Eighth Circuit
Fuller v. Hafoka, No. 21-2854, at *3 (8th Cir. Feb. 3, 2023) (stating that “it is clear that ‘a pretrial detainee who [is] agitated [yet] complying with the last directive that he had been given and who [does] not pose an immediate threat to himself or others'”‘ has a clearly established right ‘not to be violently taken to the ground without any warning'”).
MacKintrush v. Pulaski Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 987 F.3d 767, 770-71 & n.2 (8th Cir. 2021) (holding that it was clearly established in 2015 that “[a]mbiguous gestures that officers claim are noncompliant (such as reaching to extinguish a cigarette)” are not sufficient to justify non-lethal force such as “body slamming” where the suspect otherwise does not pose a threat or resist arrest).
MacKintrush v. Pulaski County Sheriff’s Dept., 20-1162, 2021 WL 401274, at *2 (8th Cir. Feb. 5, 2021) (“The right of a passive arrestee to be free from excessive use of body slams (or similar techniques) was clearly established when Hodge took MacKintrush to the floor.”) (collecting cases).
Neal v. Ficcadenti, 895 F.3d 576, 582 (8th Cir. 2018) (“After construing the facts in a light most favorable to Neal, i.e. that he was fully compliant at the time that Officer Ficcadenti applied the arm-bar takedown maneuver on him, that conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right on June 6, 2012.”).
Karels v. Storz, CV 15-3637(DSD/DTS), 2017 WL 2483792, at *5 (D. Minn. June 8, 2017), aff’d, 906 F.3d 740 (8th Cir. 2018) (“The use of a takedown maneuver on a ‘nonviolent, suspected misdemeanant who was not threatening anyone, was not actively resisting arrest, and was not attempting to flee’ is a clearly established violation of the Fourth Amendment.”).
Stockton v. Auren, CIV. 07-556 JRT/FLN, 2008 WL 1994992, at *7 (D. Minn. May 5, 2008) (stating that “under these circumstances, a reasonable officer would have known it is unlawful to execute a forceful arm-bar takedown, and unlawful to fail to intervene to prevent such conduct”).
Tenth Circuit
Morris v. Noe, 672 F.3d 1185, 1198 (10th Cir. 2012) (stating that “based on the facts assumed by the district court, Morris’s right to be free from a forceful takedown was clearly established under Graham”).