OR · 42usc1983:deprivation.fourth-amendment
Evaluated under Graham v. Connor objective reasonableness from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene.
Exact element source
to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and lawsSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title42.jsonl#title42_sec1983; Unicode character offsets [306:402] (end exclusive); SHA-256 88fe01322b9d94860a669ec452f558146e2745845070bc43583671ce12acb2bb.Routes and case patterns
| Route | Definition | Merits instance blocks | Distinct merits cases | Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| _whole accepted; provisional (1 case) | The element is decided as a whole: the reasoning turns on no narrower doctrinal sub-question that distinguishes it from any other application of this element. | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | Codrington v. Dolak — 142 F.4th 884 (2025) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2025 — satisfied · triable (42usc1983: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted |
| excessive-force provisional; provisional (1 case) | Whether there was a seizure and whether the force used to effect it was objectively reasonable (Graham). | 2 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 2; excluded context 0 | 1 | Dye v. City of Warren — 367 F. Supp. 2d 1175 (2005) · United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio · 2005 — not · no-evidence (42usc1983: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted Dye v. City of Warren — 367 F. Supp. 2d 1175 (2005) · United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio · 2005 — not · no-evidence (42usc1983: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted |
| home-entry provisional; provisional (1 case) | Whether a warrantless entry into a home was justified. | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | Calabretta v. Floyd — 189 F.3d 808 (1999) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999 — satisfied · triable (42usc1983: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted |
| search-of-person provisional; provisional (1 case) | Whether a search of the person was reasonable. | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | Calabretta v. Floyd — 189 F.3d 808 (1999) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999 — satisfied · triable (42usc1983: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dye v. City of Warren — 367 F. Supp. 2d 1175 (2005) · United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio · 2005 — not · no-evidence (42usc1983: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Deprivation of Fourth Amendment rights (unreasonable search, warrantless entry, false arrest, excessive force) | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence; party: John Mandopoulos, Chief of Police; John Does 1-5, unidentified and unserved Warren police officers; count: Count II, excessive force at the second traffic stop (Chief and John Does 1-5); subject: party=John Mandopoulos, Chief of Police; John Does 1-5, unidentified and unserved Warren police officers; count=Count II, excessive force at the second traffic stop (Chief and John Does 1-5) Plaintiff's sworn account of beating and mace is discounted at summary judgment because hospital records show only a wrist contusion; state-court admissions (no-contest plea, stipulated probable cause, counsel's statement about medication) supply the "erratic behavior" justifying force. | reasonable-force-on-fleeing-erratic-resisting-arrestee | According to the complaint, as Mr. Dye stepped out of his car, Chief Mandopoulos grabbed him and forcibly dragged him to a police cruiser which had arrived at the scene where the Chief struck the plaintiff and “pounded plaintiffs head against the hood or roof of the police cruiser while other officer[s] [sic] sprayed plaintiffs eyes with mace.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_367.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/367/1175-01; Unicode character offsets [4213:4559] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a691ce28535a7c307a739684761f22ce436f22e5bc46c2a6c0235a33bf67199f.Mr. Dye admits to fleeing the scene of that initial encounter after refusing to provide the Chief with identification.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_367.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/367/1175-01; Unicode character offsets [30450:30568] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a691ce28535a7c307a739684761f22ce436f22e5bc46c2a6c0235a33bf67199f.Accordingly, Chief Mandopoulos pursued Mr. Dye with lights and siren for nearly one mile before Mr. Dye either stopped or was stopped.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_367.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/367/1175-01; Unicode character offsets [31552:31686] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a691ce28535a7c307a739684761f22ce436f22e5bc46c2a6c0235a33bf67199f.The evidence provided by the hospital of tests performed on Mr. Dye the evening of 11 January 2002, the day of the incident, indicated only a “right wrist contusion and abrasion,” while a CT scan of Mr. Dye’s cranium proved negative for a concussion.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_367.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/367/1175-01; Unicode character offsets [32416:32666] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a691ce28535a7c307a739684761f22ce436f22e5bc46c2a6c0235a33bf67199f.The record does not indicate that Mr. Dye received any bruises or abrasions on his face, neck or head, despite his claims of being “beaten and choked,” struck in the head, sprayed in the eyes with mace, and having his head “pounded ... against the hood or roof of the police cruiser.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_367.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/367/1175-01; Unicode character offsets [33370:33654] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a691ce28535a7c307a739684761f22ce436f22e5bc46c2a6c0235a33bf67199f.In instances of excessive force claims, this Court considers the facts and circumstances of each particular case, taking into account such nonexhaustive factors as enunciated in Saucier, including “the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_367.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/367/1175-01; Unicode character offsets [26493:26899] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a691ce28535a7c307a739684761f22ce436f22e5bc46c2a6c0235a33bf67199f.The officers’ efforts to detain Mr. Dye after his vehicular flight were reasonable in light of the need to secure the plaintiff, to ensure the safety of persons in the immediate vicinity, and those who may have been at risk from plaintiffs further flight.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_367.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/367/1175-01; Unicode character offsets [31687:31942] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a691ce28535a7c307a739684761f22ce436f22e5bc46c2a6c0235a33bf67199f.However, upon review of the record and considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, this Court concludes that Mr. Dye did not suffer a constitutional deprivation during the second traffic stop.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_367.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/367/1175-01; Unicode character offsets [30039:30258] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a691ce28535a7c307a739684761f22ce436f22e5bc46c2a6c0235a33bf67199f. |
| Dye v. City of Warren — 367 F. Supp. 2d 1175 (2005) · United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio · 2005 — not · no-evidence (42usc1983: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Deprivation of Fourth Amendment rights (unreasonable search, warrantless entry, false arrest, excessive force) | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence; party: John Mandopoulos, Chief of Police; count: Count I, excessive force at the first traffic stop (Chief); subject: party=John Mandopoulos, Chief of Police; count=Count I, excessive force at the first traffic stop (Chief) Force alleged (grabbed by collar and throat through the window) but no Fourth Amendment claim because no seizure: plaintiff pulled over thinking an emergency vehicle was passing, then drove off. The court calls an encounter involving an alleged throat-grab "consensual". Basis: summary judgment resting on "the evidence" and "the reasonable inference from Mr. Dye's account", hence [no-evidence] rather than [law]. | no-seizure-driver-drove-away-from-stop | The Chief then reached into the driver’s side window “grabbed plaintiffs shirt collar and then grabbed plaintiff by the throat while attempting to open plaintiffs car door.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_367.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/367/1175-01; Unicode character offsets [3777:3950] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a691ce28535a7c307a739684761f22ce436f22e5bc46c2a6c0235a33bf67199f.Fearing for his safety, Mr. Dye drove away until, “a couple of blocks” later, he came to his doctor’s office where he stopped his car and “attempted to run to his doctor’s office screaming for someone” to help him.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_367.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/367/1175-01; Unicode character offsets [3980:4194] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a691ce28535a7c307a739684761f22ce436f22e5bc46c2a6c0235a33bf67199f.Moreover, the reasonable inference from Mr. Dye’s account of the first encounter with the Chief is that the plaintiff pulled over to the shoulder of the road to allow passage of what he thought was a police car or emergency vehicle.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_367.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/367/1175-01; Unicode character offsets [29011:29243] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a691ce28535a7c307a739684761f22ce436f22e5bc46c2a6c0235a33bf67199f.In Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-4, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989), the United States Supreme Court established that the right to be free from excessive force during an arrest or investigatory stop is provided by the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable seizures.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_367.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/367/1175-01; Unicode character offsets [27444:27736] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a691ce28535a7c307a739684761f22ce436f22e5bc46c2a6c0235a33bf67199f.At the first traffic stop involving Chief Mandopoulos, Mr. Dye was not seized because he did not feel restrained from leaving, as the evidence readily indicates.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_367.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/367/1175-01; Unicode character offsets [28849:29010] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a691ce28535a7c307a739684761f22ce436f22e5bc46c2a6c0235a33bf67199f.Consequently, Mr. Dye’s first meeting with the Chief was consensual and not a seizure.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_367.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/367/1175-01; Unicode character offsets [29244:29330] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a691ce28535a7c307a739684761f22ce436f22e5bc46c2a6c0235a33bf67199f. |
| Calabretta v. Floyd — 189 F.3d 808 (1999) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999 — satisfied · triable (42usc1983: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Deprivation of Fourth Amendment rights (unreasonable search, warrantless entry, false arrest, excessive force) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: triable; count: coerced entry into the home; subject: count=coerced entry into the home Merits and immunity are merged: on plaintiffs' version (non-consent conceded for the appeal) the entry violated the Fourth Amendment; consent remains disputed for trial. | warrantless-home-entry/child-abuse-investigation-on-weak-anonymous-tip | The caller said that she was once awakened by a child screaming “No Daddy, no” at 1:30 A.M. at the Calabretta home.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_189.jsonl#/f3d/189/0808-01; Unicode character offsets [784:899] (end exclusive); SHA-256 edec3b518ed061bd5b1694c2c9bca444a659a0f2506551d6bce3f3f43f0a5591.The children were standing at the door with their mother, and the social worker noted on her report that they “were easily seen and they did not appear to be abused/neglected.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_189.jsonl#/f3d/189/0808-01; Unicode character offsets [1735:1911] (end exclusive); SHA-256 edec3b518ed061bd5b1694c2c9bca444a659a0f2506551d6bce3f3f43f0a5591.Appellants concede that for purposes of appeal, the entry must be treated as made without consent.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_189.jsonl#/f3d/189/0808-01; Unicode character offsets [3278:3376] (end exclusive); SHA-256 edec3b518ed061bd5b1694c2c9bca444a659a0f2506551d6bce3f3f43f0a5591.By contrast, in the case at bar, the report did not describe any evidence of physical abuse, and the social worker and police officer did not perceive any danger of injury to the children or loss of evidence if they secured a warrant.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_189.jsonl#/f3d/189/0808-01; Unicode character offsets [14159:14393] (end exclusive); SHA-256 edec3b518ed061bd5b1694c2c9bca444a659a0f2506551d6bce3f3f43f0a5591.White v. Pierce County establishes that a special exigency excuses a warrantless entry where the government officers have probable cause to believe that the child has been abused and that the child would be injured or could not be taken into custody if it were first necessary to obtain a court order.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_189.jsonl#/f3d/189/0808-01; Unicode character offsets [23173:23474] (end exclusive); SHA-256 edec3b518ed061bd5b1694c2c9bca444a659a0f2506551d6bce3f3f43f0a5591.This was not a case where the officials coercing entry into the home recognized some special exigency creating imminent risk to the child.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_189.jsonl#/f3d/189/0808-01; Unicode character offsets [23034:23172] (end exclusive); SHA-256 edec3b518ed061bd5b1694c2c9bca444a659a0f2506551d6bce3f3f43f0a5591. |
| Calabretta v. Floyd — 189 F.3d 808 (1999) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999 — satisfied · triable (42usc1983: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Deprivation of Fourth Amendment rights (unreasonable search, warrantless entry, false arrest, excessive force) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: triable; count: strip search of the three-year-old; subject: count=strip search of the three-year-old Court blends Fourth Amendment privacy with a familial-privacy (parent-child relationship) interest without naming a separate Fourteenth Amendment right. | strip-search/child-examined-for-bruises-without-reasonable-suspicion | There were no bruises or marks on the three year old’s bottom.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_189.jsonl#/f3d/189/0808-01; Unicode character offsets [6014:6076] (end exclusive); SHA-256 edec3b518ed061bd5b1694c2c9bca444a659a0f2506551d6bce3f3f43f0a5591.The social worker had noted on her first visit that “Minors were easily seen and did not appear to be abused/neglected.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_189.jsonl#/f3d/189/0808-01; Unicode character offsets [29636:29756] (end exclusive); SHA-256 edec3b518ed061bd5b1694c2c9bca444a659a0f2506551d6bce3f3f43f0a5591.The reasonable expectation of privacy of individuals in their homes includes the interests of both parents and children in not having government officials coerce entry in violation of the Fourth Amendment and humiliate the parents in front of the children.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_189.jsonl#/f3d/189/0808-01; Unicode character offsets [34695:34951] (end exclusive); SHA-256 edec3b518ed061bd5b1694c2c9bca444a659a0f2506551d6bce3f3f43f0a5591.A social worker is not entitled to sacrifice a family’s privacy and dignity to her own personal views on how parents ought to discipline their children.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_189.jsonl#/f3d/189/0808-01; Unicode character offsets [30726:30878] (end exclusive); SHA-256 edec3b518ed061bd5b1694c2c9bca444a659a0f2506551d6bce3f3f43f0a5591. |
| Codrington v. Dolak — 142 F.4th 884 (2025) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2025 — satisfied · triable (42usc1983: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Deprivation of Fourth Amendment rights (unreasonable search, warrantless entry, false arrest, excessive force) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: triable; party: Officers Dolak, Blissett and Kirk (Louisville Metro Police Department); count: fabrication-of-evidence claim (planted methamphetamine and marijuana, photo given to the prosecutor); subject: party=Officers Dolak, Blissett and Kirk (Louisville Metro Police Department); count=fabrication-of-evidence claim (planted methamphetamine and marijuana, photo given to the prosecutor) The court places the claim under the Fourth Amendment, not the Due Process Clause, because Codrington was charged but never convicted on the allegedly fabricated evidence. Circumstantial evidence and his own unequivocal denial suffice at summary judgment; "affirmative proof" of planting is not required. | drugs allegedly planted in a patrol car after three fruitless searches, undocumented by body cameras, and a photo with items not the arrestee's handed to the prosecutor | The officers admit that the photo they submitted to the prosecutor contained items—a handgun and two magazines—that did not belong to Codrington.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_142.jsonl#/f4th/142/884; Unicode character offsets [21100:21245] (end exclusive); SHA-256 997b387c2c89f1d2c34461257739053b3dcd8941cb6ef00e0ce9f261c8d7c09a.Moreover, throughout his criminal proceedings and this litigation, Codrington unequivocally denied possessing the methamphetamine found in Dolak’s vehicle.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_142.jsonl#/f4th/142/884; Unicode character offsets [22226:22381] (end exclusive); SHA-256 997b387c2c89f1d2c34461257739053b3dcd8941cb6ef00e0ce9f261c8d7c09a.Notably, Kirk’s body camera “did not work throughout the entire incident,” and Blissett turned off his body camera about 45 minutes before they departed the gas station for the booking facility.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_142.jsonl#/f4th/142/884; Unicode character offsets [20807:21001] (end exclusive); SHA-256 997b387c2c89f1d2c34461257739053b3dcd8941cb6ef00e0ce9f261c8d7c09a.In fact, the district court lamented that “[a]lthough the police work here was dubious, there is no affirmative proof that the officers planted narcotics.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_142.jsonl#/f4th/142/884; Unicode character offsets [23681:23836] (end exclusive); SHA-256 997b387c2c89f1d2c34461257739053b3dcd8941cb6ef00e0ce9f261c8d7c09a.To prevail on this claim, Codrington must show that defendants “fabricated evidence presented to a grand jury or to a judge determining probable cause.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_142.jsonl#/f4th/142/884; Unicode character offsets [19346:19498] (end exclusive); SHA-256 997b387c2c89f1d2c34461257739053b3dcd8941cb6ef00e0ce9f261c8d7c09a.Given this evidence, Codrington has demonstrated a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the officers fabricated evidence and used that evidence to charge him with crimes.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_142.jsonl#/f4th/142/884; Unicode character offsets [23046:23226] (end exclusive); SHA-256 997b387c2c89f1d2c34461257739053b3dcd8941cb6ef00e0ce9f261c8d7c09a. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
In Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-4, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989), the United States Supreme Court established that the right to be free from excessive force during an arrest or investigatory stop is provided by the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable seizures.
Dye v. City of Warren — 367 F. Supp. 2d 1175 (2005) · United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio · 2005 (42usc1983: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
In Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-4, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989), the United States Supreme Court established that the right to be free from excessive force during an arrest or investigatory stop is provided by the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable seizures.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_367.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/367/1175-01; Unicode character offsets [27444:27736] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a691ce28535a7c307a739684761f22ce436f22e5bc46c2a6c0235a33bf67199f.Evaluated under Graham v. Connor objective reasonableness from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene.
interpretation
In instances of excessive force claims, this Court considers the facts and circumstances of each particular case, taking into account such nonexhaustive factors as enunciated in Saucier, including “the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.”
Dye v. City of Warren — 367 F. Supp. 2d 1175 (2005) · United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio · 2005 (42usc1983: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
In instances of excessive force claims, this Court considers the facts and circumstances of each particular case, taking into account such nonexhaustive factors as enunciated in Saucier, including “the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.”Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_367.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/367/1175-01; Unicode character offsets [26493:26899] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a691ce28535a7c307a739684761f22ce436f22e5bc46c2a6c0235a33bf67199f.Evaluated under Graham v. Connor objective reasonableness from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene.
interpretation
White v. Pierce County establishes that a special exigency excuses a warrantless entry where the government officers have probable cause to believe that the child has been abused and that the child would be injured or could not be taken into custody if it were first necessary to obtain a court order.
Calabretta v. Floyd — 189 F.3d 808 (1999) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999 (42usc1983: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
White v. Pierce County establishes that a special exigency excuses a warrantless entry where the government officers have probable cause to believe that the child has been abused and that the child would be injured or could not be taken into custody if it were first necessary to obtain a court order.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_189.jsonl#/f3d/189/0808-01; Unicode character offsets [23173:23474] (end exclusive); SHA-256 edec3b518ed061bd5b1694c2c9bca444a659a0f2506551d6bce3f3f43f0a5591.Evaluated under Graham v. Connor objective reasonableness from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene.
interpretation
The reasonable expectation of privacy of individuals in their homes includes the interests of both parents and children in not having government officials coerce entry in violation of the Fourth Amendment and humiliate the parents in front of the children.
Calabretta v. Floyd — 189 F.3d 808 (1999) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999 (42usc1983: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
The reasonable expectation of privacy of individuals in their homes includes the interests of both parents and children in not having government officials coerce entry in violation of the Fourth Amendment and humiliate the parents in front of the children.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_189.jsonl#/f3d/189/0808-01; Unicode character offsets [34695:34951] (end exclusive); SHA-256 edec3b518ed061bd5b1694c2c9bca444a659a0f2506551d6bce3f3f43f0a5591.Evaluated under Graham v. Connor objective reasonableness from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene.