Did the Second Circuit Court of Appeals improperly find a constitutional violation in failing to consider the reasonableness of the use of force from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene and in direct contravention of precedent from this Court?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Police officers were attempting to transfer a detainee to a padded cell where he could be appropriately monitored after he repeatedly obstructed the view of his cell camera and was exhibiting erratic and_ self-injurious behavior. Despite several efforts to obtain the detainee’s voluntary compliance with non-forceful efforts to secure and transfer him, he admittedly refused to comply, charged at the officers, and grabbed onto and physically struggled with an officer over control of a baton, resulting in the controlled deployment of a canine to engage the detainee’s lower leg in an effort to overcome his resistance and protect fellow officers. The detainee, nevertheless, continued an active physical struggle with officers, resulting in the application of a baton to his thigh, buttocks and shoulder, each of which also failed to obtain his compliance. A single taser strike, via drive stun, was then applied to the detainee’s shoulder, upon which the detainee finally ceased fighting and submitted to handcuffing. The questions presented are: 1. Did the Second Circuit Court of Appeals improperly find a constitutional violation in failing to consider the reasonableness of the use of force from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene and in direct contravention of precedent from this Court? 2. Did the Second Circuit Court of Appeals improperly deny qualified immunity to the officers given that the defense was raised, briefed and argued before the Court and where, as recognized by the panel, the facts and circumstances surrounding the plaintiffs ii admittedly active resistance and corresponding use of force were largely undisputed? 38. Did the Second Circuit Court of Appeals improperly deny qualified immunity to the officers in failing to consider whether the claimed rights were clearly established given the particularized and largely undisputed facts and circumstances of this case?