The only remaining question is whether that conduct was objectively reasonable, which is a question of law, not fact."); Henry v. Purnell, 652 F.3d 524, 531 (4th Cir. 2011) ("At the summary judgment stage, once we have viewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, the question of whether the officer's actions were reasonable is a question of pure law."); Putman v. Harris, 66 F.4th 181, 186 (4th Cir. 2023) ("To determine whether the force used was excessive, we apply a standard of objective reasonableness. This is a question of law, which we judge from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene."
We review the district court's denial of qualified immunity de novo. Putman v. Harris, 66 F.4th 181, 186 (4th Cir. 2023).
When confronted directly, Mr. Harrold engaged in passive, not active, resistance. Cf Putman v. Harris, 66 F.4th 181,188 (4th Cir. 2023);
Putman v. Harris, 66 F.4th 181, 188 (4th Cir. 2023) (finding that Harris acted reasonably in releasing the dog to attack the defendant). In obedience to the court of appeals' decision, I entered judgment in favor of defendant Harris.
. “[T]he Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable seizures bars police officers from using excessive force to seize a free citizen.” Smith v. Murphy, 634 Fed.Appx. 914, 916 (4th Cir. 2015) (quoting Jones v. Buchanan, 325 F.3d 520, 527 (4th Cir. 2003); see also Putman v. Harris, 66 F.4th 181, 186 (4th Cir. 2023) (“[Officers can't use excessive force to carry out a seizure.”). “A claim that a police officer employed excessive force is analyzed under the Fourth Amendment under an ‘objective reasonableness' standard.”
Based on the foregoing, under the “totality of the circumstances known to [Smith] at the time of the [detainment],” it was reasonable for Smith to believe that Plaintiff had committed a trespass offense. See Brown, 278 F.3d at 367; see also Putman v. Harris, No. 22-1360, 2023 WL 2994158, at *4 (4th Cir. Apr. 19, 2023) (