Whether the Tenth Circuit's use of Hill's First Amendment analysis negated the objective Fourth Amendment standard of Maryland v. Pringle

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Petitioners are police officers who used a takedown maneuver to effectuate the arrest of Respondent John Jordan who arrived at the scene of a traffic accident that involved his nephew who had been driving Jordan’s company vehicle. While the officers questioned witnesses at the scene, Jordan repeatedly and loudly inserted himself into the investigation. Eventually the officers ordered Jordan to leave, which he refused to do. Jordan then did not comply with an instruction to put his hands behind his back and instead pulled away from the officer. Thereupon, an officer grabbed Jordan’s arm and took him to his knees and then to the ground to handcuff him. No further force was used. Jordan brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging Petitioners’ probable cause for his arrest and their use of force. The district court granted the officers qualified immunity at summary judgment. On appeal, the Tenth Circuit reversed relying heavily on this Court’s First Amendment decision in City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (1987) and circuit precedent involving passive non-compliance with an officer’s orders. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the Tenth Circuit’s use of Hill’s First Amendment analysis negated the objective Fourth Amendment standard of Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366 (2003)? 2. Whether it was clearly established for qualified immunity purposes that initiating a takedown maneuver to effectuate an arrest on a person who did not comply with an order to place his ii hands behind his back and pulled away was an excessive use of force in violation of the Fourth Amendment?