## Facts

- A Virginia Beach police officer, R.R. Ray, accompanied a private citizen to a residence while searching for the citizen’s missing juvenile stepson.
- Ray questioned Amanda Smith at the front door about the juvenile and an acquaintance believed to be inside.
- When Smith turned to retrieve the acquaintance, Ray allegedly shut the door and grabbed Smith’s shoulder without explanation.
- Smith pulled her arm away, questioned Ray’s actions, and used a racial epithet; she did not flee.
- Ray allegedly threw Smith to the ground, pinned her, ordered her to show her arms, and punched her three times.
- Smith resisted giving her arms because she used one arm to brace against the ground to breathe.
- Ray handcuffed Smith and pulled her up by her ponytail.
- A pocket knife fell from Smith’s clothing during the struggle, but Ray did not notice it until after she was handcuffed.
- Smith sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging Fourth Amendment excessive force.
- The district court denied Ray’s summary-judgment motion asserting qualified immunity; Ray took an interlocutory appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether, viewing the facts in Smith’s favor, Ray’s use of force during the arrest was objectively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
2. If a constitutional violation could be found, whether the right was clearly established such that Ray was not entitled to qualified immunity.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit affirmed the denial of qualified immunity at summary judgment on Smith’s excessive-force claim.
- Accepting Smith’s account, a reasonable jury could find the force used (takedown, pinning, punches, and hair-pulling) exceeded what was reasonably necessary.
- The knife did not justify the force because Ray did not perceive it until after Smith was handcuffed.
- Existing precedent clearly established that significant force against a non-threatening, non-fleeing, minimally resistant person violates the Fourth Amendment.

## Legal Principles

- Excessive-force claims during an arrest are governed by the Fourth Amendment’s objective-reasonableness standard.
- Objective reasonableness is assessed by balancing the intrusion on the individual against governmental interests, considering factors such as severity of the suspected offense, immediate threat, and resistance or flight.
- Qualified immunity requires (1) facts supporting a constitutional violation and (2) a clearly established right such that a reasonable officer would have known the conduct was unlawful.
- Reasonableness is judged based on what the officer perceived at the moment force was used, not on dangers discovered afterward.

## Conclusion

The court held that, on the summary-judgment record viewed in Smith’s favor, a jury could find Ray used excessive force and that clearly established law prohibited such force against a non-threatening, non-fleeing person offering at most limited resistance; therefore, Ray was not entitled to qualified immunity at that stage.


Smith v. Ray, 781 F.3d 95 (4th Cir. 2015)