CA7: “[P]ointing guns at Matz while ordering him to stop or risk having his ‘fucking head’ blown off, frisking, handcuffing, and placing him in a patrol car” reasonable here under Terry

While the question is close, “pointing guns at Matz while ordering him to stop or risk having his ‘fucking head’ blown off, frisking, handcuffing, and placing him in a patrol car—was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which initially justified the interference” under Terry. Summary judgment for defendant officers affirmed. Matz v. Klotka, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 19074 (7th Cir. October 6, 2014):

We are thus left with the question whether Matz has created a triable issue of fact as to whether the manner in which the officers effectuated the detention—pointing guns at Matz while ordering him to stop or risk having his “fucking head” blown off, frisking, handcuffing, and placing him in a patrol car—was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which initially justified the interference. Terry, 392 U.S. at 20. The use of a firearm and handcuffs undoubtedly puts Matz’s encounter at the outer edge of a permissible Terry stop. As we have previously recognized, “‘[s]ubtle, and perhaps tenuous distinctions exist between a Terry stop, a Terry stop rapidly evolving into an arrest and a de facto arrest.'” Bullock, 632 F.3d at 1016 (internal quotations and citation omitted). These tenuous distinctions are at the heart of Matz’s claim: he asserts that Zuberbier and Klotka made a de facto arrest without probable cause, and the officers argue, in essence, that a legitimate Terry stop evolved rapidly into an arrest supported by probable cause. The officers argue alternatively that qualified immunity protects them from liability because under the circumstances it would not have been clear to a reasonable officer that using force and handcuffs to detain Matz violated clearly established law. See Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982) (setting forth well-known qualified immunity test that government officials are protected from civil damages as long as conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known); Jones v. Clark, 630 F.3d 677, 680 (7th Cir. 2011) (entitlement to qualified immunity turns on whether facts describe the violation of a clearly established constitutional right).

Although the hallmarks of formal arrest such as applying handcuffs, drawing weapons, and placing suspects in police vehicles should not be the norm during an investigatory detention, all of those measures have been recognized as appropriate in certain circumstances. See Bullock, 632 F.3d at 1016 (collecting cases); Tilmon, 19 F.3d at 1224-25 (noting “for better or for worse” the trend of expanding Terry stops to include “the permitting of the use of handcuffs, the placing of suspects in police cruisers, the drawing of weapons, and other measures of force more traditionally associated with arrest than with investigatory detention”); United States v. Weaver, 8 F.3d 1240, 1244 (7th Cir. 1993) (measured use of appropriate force does not convert seizure into arrest). In evaluating whether the force used converted an encounter into a full arrest, we must consider whether the surrounding circumstances would support an officer’s legitimate fear for personal safety. See Jewett, 521 F.3d at 824. We must also take into account the suspect’s own behavior in resisting an officer’s efforts. Id at 825. (citing United States v. Lawshea, 461 F.3d 857, 860 (7th Cir. 2006)).

. . .

Although we conclude that the officers’ safety and the dynamic situation they confronted justified using force and restricting Matz’s movement, we again caution law enforcement officers that in the ordinary case a Terry stop should not be functionally indistinguishable from a full-blown arrest. Of particular cause for concern in this regard is Zuberbier’s deposition testimony that he considers such detentions with handcuffs as part of “normal” police work: “[W]e detain people all the time. We handcuff them, we find out it’s all legitimate, talk to them, let them go. It’s part of daily police work.” On the contrary, we remind law enforcement that using handcuffs generally signifies an arrest, which requires probable cause and not the less demanding reasonable suspicion standard that permits only a brief and minimally intrusive detention. Indeed, the fact that we have recognized exceptions for concerns such as officer safety should not be read to imply that the use of handcuffs and more intrusive measures will not be a significant factor in assessing whether officers have exceeded the bounds of a limited Terry detention. See Ramos v. City of Chicago, 716 F.3d 1013, 1018 (7th Cir. 2013) (“The proliferation of cases in this court in which ‘Terry’ stops involve handcuffs and ever-increasing wait times in police vehicles is disturbing, and we would caution law enforcement officers that the acceptability of handcuffs in some cases does not signal that the restraint is not a significant consideration in determining the nature of the stop.”); see also Rabin, 725 F.3d at 639-41 (concurring opinion) (detailing exceptions supporting use of handcuffs and other formal hallmarks of arrest and reiterating that such invasive measures should be exception not rule).