Cheryl D. LYONS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CITY OF XENIA, et al., Defendants, Christine Keith, Officer; Matthew Foubert, Officer, Defendants-Appellants, 417 F.3d 565

SUTTON, J., delivered the opinion of the court. GIBBONS, J. (p. 580), delivered a separate concurring opinion. SUTTON, J. (pp. 580-584), delivered a separate concurring opinion, in which GIBBONS, J., joined. TARNOW, D.J. (pp. 584-590), delivered a separate dissenting opinion. SUTTON, Circuit Judge. This case returns to us from the Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of the Court’s recent opinion in Brosseau v. Haugen, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 596, 160 L.Ed.2d 583 (2004).

We previously held that Officer Christine Keith was entitled to qualified immunity from Cheryl Lyons’ false-arrest claim; Officer Matthew Fou-bert was entitled to qualified immunity from Lyons’ claim that he used excessive force in handcuffing her; and Officer Fou-bert was not entitled to qualified immunity from Lyons’ claim that he used excessive force in tackling her in response to a distressed call for backup support from Officer Keith. See Lyons v. City of Xenia, 90 Fed.Appx. 835 (6th Cir. Jan.27, 2004).

Officer Foubert sought review of that .part of our opinion denying him qualified immunity from Lyons’ excessive-force tackling claim, and the Supreme Court vacated our judgment for reconsideration in light of Brosseau. See Foubert v. Lyons, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 808, 160 L.Ed.2d 596 (2004). After considering the Supreme Court’s treatment of similar qualified-immunity issues in Brosseau, we now extend qualified immunity to Officer Foubert for Lyons’ excessive-force tackling claim.

We leave undisturbed those parts of our prior opinion granting Officer Keith qualified immunity from Lyons’ false-arrest claim and Officer Foubert qualified immunity from Lyons’ excessive-force handcuffing claim. I. On the evening of August 18, 1998, Officer Christine Keith received a call to investigate an assault allegedly committed by Aiesha Ward, a sixteen-year old girl, and her friend Sara Dodd. Officer Keith initially went to the Dodd residence to obtain information from Sara’s mother. Aiesha was also present at the Dodd residence.

After obtaining the information necessary to issue a citation for Sara, Officer Keith told Aiesha thát she wanted to speak with her mother and would follow Aiesha to her residence. Upon arriving home, Aiesha told her mother, Cheryl Lyons, that a police officer was with her, at which time Officer Keith informed Lyons that Aiesha had assaulted another girl. After several exchanges with Lyons, Officer Keith turned to Aiesha and asked for her name and address. Lyons interrupted and told her daughter to stop answering questions because Lyons needed more information.

Officer Keith responded that if she could not finish questioning Aiesha, Aiesha would have to come “downtown” with her, to which Lyons answered that Keith “was not taking her daughter anywhere.” Lyons claims that during this interchange she told Keith to leave, but that Keith refused, citing her need for information. Lyons next told the officer to take a seat' because she needed to take her blood pressure medicine. When Lyons walked into the kitchen to get her medicine, Officer Keith followed her.

At that point, the verbal confrontation between the two women grew more heated as Officer Keith repeated her requests for information regarding Aiesha. Responding to what she perceived as Officer Keith’s “badgering,” Lyons became angry and cursed at the officer. Officer Keith claims that in response to Lyons’ obscenities, she advised Lyons to calm down and cooperate. At some point during this verbal exchange, Lyons noticed Officer Keith tightening her right fist down at her side. Keith allegedly took an “aggressive” step toward Lyons, closing the space between the women from three feet to two.

Lyons then told the officer: “I’m not scared of you. I know you cannot hit a police officer, I am not stupid.” Keith gives a different rendering of this remark, claiming that Lyons warned her that if she had not been wearing a badge, she would have “slap[ped] the *sh[-]’ out of’ her. According to Keith, Lyons continued to scream obscenities and “got up in [her] face,” at which point Keith advised her to back down. Lyons admits that both of them were “screaming.” Both women agree that Lyons made some sort of hand gesture at this point.

According to Lyons, she raised her index finger at the officer, demanding, “[d]amnit, didn’t you just hear what I said?” (referring apparently to wanting the opportunity to take her medicine before answering questions). Officer Keith describes the incident as Lyons “raising] her hand towards” Officer Keith’s face. Officer Keith grabbed Lyons’ wrist after the finger-pointing/hand-raising episode. In response, Lyons immediately pulled her wrist away. Although Officer Keith claims to have told Lyons she was under arrest, Lyons denies hearing this, claiming that she did not think she was being arrested.

It is undisputed that Lyons pulled her wrist away from Officer Keith’s grasp and either attempted to, or did, walk away. According to Lyons, after she pulled her wrist away, she walked into the front room and Officer Keith followed her there. Lyons denies having any additional physical contact with Officer Keith aside from when Keith grabbed her wrist. By contrast, Officer Keith claims that after Lyons pulled her wrist back, the two women struggled as Keith attempted to handcuff Lyons, and Lyons ultimately punched her in the left eye during the struggle. Lyons denies hitting Officer Keith.

At some point during this struggle, all agree, Officer Keith radioed for backup. The call went to Officer Foubert who says he heard Officer Keith “yelling for help” with a distressed tone in her voice, as well as commotion in the background. Lyons claims that a few moments after Officer Keith made the call, Officer Foubert came running into the house through the front door at full speed. In what Lyons and Aiesha describe as a football tackle, Officer Foubert knocked Lyons to the ground.

Lyons claims that her left knee hit the ground and that she was lying on her stomach, with Officer Foubert, a 5'll", 240 lb. man, on top of her midsection. She told the officer that she could not breathe. According to Lyons, Officer Foubert then “threw” Lyons on her right side, and handcuffed her arms behind her back. Officer Foubert gives a different version of the events. As he entered the house, he saw the two women struggling with each other on the floor, side-by-side. By that time, Officer Keith had already placed a handcuff on one of Lyons’ arms.

Officer Foubert pulled Lyons away from Keith by picking her up, then leaned her over a chair, using a “balance displacement technique.” It is undisputed that the two officers picked Lyons up under the arms following the tackle/balance displacement technique, and they assisted her out to Keith’s cruiser. Keith transported Lyons to the station without further mishap, where she was charged with obstructing official business, assault and resisting arrest. Lyons was tried before a jury, which acquitted her on all three charges.

Following the acquittal, she filed suit against the City of Xenia, Chief of Police Eric Prindle, and Officers Keith and Foubert, raising claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and state tort law. Because Lyons acknowledged in a pleading that all of her claims against the City of Xenia and Chief Prin-dle, as well as her claims brought under state law against all four defendants, were meritless, the district court, entered

summary judgment on these claims. With respect to the claims remaining against Officers Foubert and Keith, Lyons alleged that the officers violated her Fourth Amendment rights by arresting her without probable cause and by using excessive force in the course of making the arrest. Reasoning that no evidence linked Officer Foubert to the false-arrest claim or Officer Keith to the excessive-force claim, the district court granted the officers’

summary judgment motions on these claims. The district court, however, rejected Officer Keith’s argument that as a matter of law she had probable cause to arrest Lyons and rejected Officer Fou-bert’s argument that as a matter of law he did not use excessive force in arresting Lyons. . The district court likewise rejected the officers’ qualified immunity defenses. If believed, the court concluded, Lyons’ presentation of the evidence would show that the officers violated clearly established constitutional rights. After the district judge denied qualified immunity on those three claims, the officers appealed.

On January 27, 2004, we reversed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity for all claims save Lyons’ excessive-force tackling claim against Officer Foubert. Officer Foubert appealed the denial of qualified immunity on the remaining claim to the Supreme Court, which vacated our judgment on December 13, 2004, and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of Brosseau.

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision, we asked the parties to provide supplemental briefs about the impact of Brosseau on this case and specifically asked them whether they would prefer the district court to address the issue in the first instance. Neither party requested that we initially remand the case to the district court. II. A. Brosseau reaffirms the two-step process announced in, and supplements the reasoning of, Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001).

In addressing qualified-immunity claims, Saucier instructed lower courts initially to consider whether “the facts alleged show the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right.” Id. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151. If the plaintiff can. establish that a constitutional violation occurred, a court should ask “whether the right was clearly established ... in light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad general proposition.” Id.

Brosseau stemmed from an incident in which Officer Rochelle Brosseau “shot Kenneth Haugen in the back as he attempted to flee from law enforcement authorities in his vehicle.” 125 S.Ct. at 597, 125 S.Ct. 596. Haugen filed an excessive-force § 1983 action, which the federal district court dismissed after holding that Brosseau was entitled to qualified immunity but which the Ninth Circuit reinstated. See id. As the Brosseau Court noted, Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 105 S.Ct. 1694, 85 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985), and Graham v.

Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989), establish the governing constitutional rules regarding excessive force. In Gamer, the Court held that the reasonableness of using deadly force to subdue a suspect hinges on whether the “officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others.” 471 U.S. at 11, 105 S.Ct. 1694. And Graham held that excessive-force claims generally “are properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment’s ‘objective reasonableness’ standard.” 490 U.S. at 388, 109 S.Ct. 1865.

Expressing no view on the constitutional issue, Brosseau reversed the Court of Appeals’ denial of qualified immunity. The qualified immunity inquiry, the Court stressed, “must be undertaken in light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad general proposition.” 125 S.Ct. at 599 (quoting Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151).

Although precedent “establishes the general proposition that use of force is contrary to the Fourth Amendment if it is excessive under objective standards of reasonableness,” that is “not enough” to deny qualified immunity because “the right the official is alleged to have violated must have been ‘clearly established’ in a more particularized, and hence more relevant, sense.” Brosseau, 125 S.Ct. at 599 (quoting Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151).

In “an obvious case,” the Court acknowledged, the “general [excessive-force] tests set out in Garner and Graham ... can ‘clearly establish’ the answer, even without a body of relevant case law.” Brosseau, 125 S.Ct. at 599; see also Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 738, 122 S.Ct. 2508, 153 L.Ed.2d 666 (2002). But Brosseau’s case, the Court held, was “far from the obvious one where Graham and Gamer alone offer a basis for decision.” Brosseau, 125 S.Ct. at 599.

Turning to cases from the courts of appeals that more closely resembled the fact pattern at hand — which Brosseau described as “whether to shoot a disturbed felon, set on avoiding capture through vehicular flight, when persons in the immediate area are at risk from that flight,” id. at 600 — the Court concluded that these “cases taken together undoubtedly show that this area is one in which the result depends very much on the facts of each case.” Id.

Because “[n]one of [the cases] squarely governed]” Brosseau, the Court ultimately held that Officer Brosseau’s actions “fell in the ‘hazy border between excessive and acceptable force’ ” and that she was therefore entitled to qualified immunity. Id. B. Brosseau does not alter our prior treatment of

(1) Lyons’ false-arrest claim against Officer Keith and (2) her excessive-force handcuffing claim against Officer Foubert. The Court’s command that qualified immunity is appropriate where “the result depends very much on the facts of each case” supports our prior analysis. See id. And neither claim, for that matter, was before the Court in Officer Foubert’s petition for certiorari, which solely requested review of our denial of qualified immunity on Lyons’ excessive-force tackling claim. We therefore reinstate the reasoning and holding of our prior opinion on these two claims.

For the convenience of the reader, we include, with minor alterations, our analysis of these issues from our prior opinion. l. It has long been true that the Fourth Amendment requires probable cause for an arrest. See Crockett v. Cumberland College, 316 F.3d 571, 580 (6th Cir.2003). And it has long been true that this inquiry turns on whether the “facts and circumstances within the officer’s knowledge [] are sufficient to warrant a prudent person, or one of reasonable caution, in believing, in the circumstances shown, that the suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offense.” Michigan v.

DeFillippo, 443 U.S. 31, 37, 99 S.Ct. 2627, 61 L.Ed.2d 343 (1979). Courts look at this question through the lens “of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” Klein v. Long, 275 F.3d 544, 550 (6th Cir.2001) (citations omitted); cf. Graham, 490 U.S. at 396, 109 S.Ct. 1865 (applying the same test in the context of judging the reasonableness of force used by officers). In this instance, the City of Xenia charged Lyons with violating three of its ordinances: (1) obstructing official business; (2) assault; and (3) resisting arrest.

To the extent probable cause exists for any one of these charges, the arrest was lawful and our analysis is complete. See, e.g., Weaver v. Shadoan, 340 F.3d 398, 407 (6th Cir.2003).

The Xenia ordinance against obstructing official business tracks the language of the Ohio code: “No person, without privilege to do so and with purpose to prevent, obstruct, or delay the performance by a public official of any authorized act within the public official’s lawful capacity, shall do any act that hampers or impedes a public official in the performance of the public official’s lawful duties.” Xenia, Ohio, Ordinance § 608.06; Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2921.31.

A conviction under the Ohio provision requires (1) the performance of an unprivileged act (2) with the purpose of preventing, obstructing or delaying the performance by a public official of an authorized act within his official capacity (3) which hampers or impedes the public official in the performance of his lawful duties. City of North Ridgeville v. Reichbaum, 112 Ohio App.3d 79, 677 N.E.2d 1245, 1248 (1996).

Lyons’ actions plainly satisfy the second and third elements of this probabie-cause inquiry, as shown by the following sequence of events — which is not disputed, either because Lyons admitted to the conduct or because she did not contradict other evidence presented oh the point. Lyons prevented Officer Keith from questioning her daughter, telling Aiesha not to answer any questions until Officer Kéith provided more information.

When Officer Keith responded that if she could not finish questioning Aiesha, Aiesha would have to come “downtown” with her, Lyons replied that she “was mot taking her daughter anywhere.” Lyons then told Officer Keith that she needed to take her blood pressure medicine before they could continue the discussion, and she went into the kitchen to do so. After Keith followed her into the kitchen, Lyons cursed at Keith, and the altercation continued to intensify until the two women were “screaming” at each other. At some point during the encounter, Lyons pointed her index finger at Keith and swore at her again.

On this record, it is clear that Lyons intended to, and did, delay Officer Keith’s investigation. The critical issue in the district court’s view, and in ours as well, is whether these facts satisfy the first element of the test — the performance of an unprivileged act. Under Ohio law, this requirement demands an affirmative act that interrupts police- business. See City of Hamilton v. Hamm, 33 Ohio App.3d 175, 514 N.E.2d 942, 943-44 (1986). A person may not be convicted of the offense simply by doing nothing, such as refusing to provide identification or other information to the police. See State v.

McCrone, 63 Ohio App.3d 831, 580 N.E.2d 468, 470-71 (1989). In deciding that Lyons’ actions did not amount to sufficient affirmative acts to give rise to probable cause, the district court emphasized that the conduct of Lyons differed considerably from the affirmative acts of the defendant in State v. Merz, 2000 WL 1051837 (Ohio App. July 31, 2000). In Merz, the Ohio Court of Appeals sustained a conviction for obstructing official business where the defendant refused to provide identification when officers questioned him about dogs that he had allowed to run loose. Id. at *2.

The defendant verbally abused the officers, physically moved away from them and into his house, and unequivocally indicated that he would physically resist any attempt by police to calm or restrain him — all of which, the court determined, combined to satisfy the affirmative-act requirement for obstructing official business. Id. The facts of Merz and this case, as an initial matter, have more in common than the district court concluded. The defendant in Men, it is true, took physical steps to resist the officers.

But the Ohio Court of Appeals did not rely on this fact in determining whether the officers had probable cause to arrest. Rather, the court determined that probable cause existed before the defendant’s physical resistance, when he “unequivocally indicated that he would not provide any identification and that he would physically resist any attempt to calm or restrain him.” Id. While Lyons appears not to have made such an “unequivocal” statement of resistance to Officer Keith, she undoubtedly demonstrated her hostility and unwillingness to cooperate in physical and verbal ways.

More fundamentally, other Ohio courts have concluded that the affirmative-act requirement may be satisfied on the basis of conduct that is not far afield from what occurred here. For example, hostile or abusive speech that obstructs officers from fulfilling their duties may amount to a sufficient affirmative act to sustain a charge of obstructing official business. See State v. Stayton, 126 Ohio App.3d 158, 709 N.E.2d 1224, 1227 (1998); see also State v. Overholt, 1999 WL 635717, at *3-4 (Ohio App.

Aug. 18, 1999) (defendant’s “interference with the officers’ attempts to complete an arrest, coupled with his repeated, prolonged, and profane outbursts” were unprotected fighting words and constituted sufficient “acts” to support a charge under Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 2921.31). If the volume and demeanor of the defendant make it impossible for police to question another individual, the act requirement is also met. See City of Warren v. Lucas, 2000 WL 655446, at *3 (Ohio App.

May 19,2000); see also Reichbaum, 677 N.E.2d at 1248-49 (finding sufficient affirmative acts where defendant prevented officers from questioning his stepdaughter about a neighbor’s complaint of a disturbance at the defendant’s home by repeatedly interrupting the questioning and refusing to be led away from his stepdaughter). Where the overall pattern of behavior is one of resistance, moreover, officers may consider the totality of the events and need not point to a single act that rises to the level of obstruction. See id. at 1248-49.

See also Overholt, 1999 WL 635717, at *2 (“Rather than viewing the acts of a defendant in isolation, the total course of the defendant must be considered.”). Measured by the lessons from these precedents, Lyons’ conduct would allow a reasonable officer to conclude that she had committed affirmative acts that interfered with police business. The complete picture after all includes more than just Lyons’ refusal to provide information; it also includes profanity-laced yelling and finger-pointing at the officer, as well as the disruptive character of her speech — ie., its volume, demeanor, etc. — as in Lucas.

Add to this Lyons’ simultaneous refusal either to let Keith take Aiesha down to the station or to answer Keith’s questions about Aiesha, and it becomes clear that Lyons’ uncooperative and hostile behavior would give a reasonable officer cause to believe that an arrest for obstructing official business was appropriate. Nor need we determine exactly where Ohio draws the line on the affirmative-act requirement. In ascertaining whether a constitutional violation occurred, the only question is whether Officer Keith had probable cause — not whether the evidence would be sufficient to support a conviction. See Adams v.

Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 149, 92 S.Ct. 1921, 32 L.Ed.2d 612 (1972) (“Probable cause does not require the same type of specific evidence of each element of the offense as would be needed to support a conviction.”). Neither need we determine whether Aiesha and her mother consented to Officer Keith’s presence in the Lyons’ house. The fact is, Lyons has only challenged the constitutionality of the seizure (e.g., a false arrest claim), not the constitutionality of the search (e.g., the entry into the house).

On this record, Officer Keith’s conduct did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation, and at all events in view of the less-than-preeise contours of Ohio’s affirmative-act requirement her conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. Officer Keith accordingly is entitled to qualified immunity. 2. Under the Fourth Amendment, as we have noted, individuals also have a right to be free of excessive force when police make an arrest or seizure. See Graham, 490 U.S. at 394-95, 109 S.Ct. 1865.

As with probable cause, this inquiry turns on the objective reasonableness of the officer’s conduct in view of the facts and circumstances facing the officer. Id. at 397, 109 S.Ct. 1865.

In making this evaluation, courts look’ at “[1] the severity of the crime at issue, [2] whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and [3] whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting- to evade arrest by flight.” Id. at 396, 109 S.Ct. 1865. “Not every push or shove, even if it may later seem unnecessary in the peace of a judge’s chambers, violates the Fourth Amendment.” Id. (citation and quotation omitted).

According to Lyons, Officer Foubert initially handcuffed her “as tight as he could” — so that the handcuffs were “very, very, very tight.” Aside from bruising on her wrist, Lyons does not allege any other injury stemming from the handcuffing and does not allege that the tightness of the handcuffs persisted beyond the moment of handcuffing. Nor does Lyons allege that she complained to Foubert about the tightness of the handcuffs and that he ignored her complaints. The Fourth Amendment, it is true, prohibits unduly tight handcuffing in the course of an arrest. See Martin v.

Heideman, 106 F.3d 1308, 1313 (6th Cir.1997); Walton v. City of Southfield, 995 F.2d 1331, 1342 (6th Cir.1993). And this general principle, it is also true, was “clearly established” under Sixth Circuit case law at the time of Lyons’ arrest. See Martin, 106 F.3d at 1313. Not all allegations of tight handcuffing, however, amount to excessive force. In order to reach a jury on this claim, the plaintiff must allege some physical injury from the handcuffing, see Neague v.

Cynkar, 258 F.3d 504, 508 (6th Cir.2001), and must show that officers ignored plaintiffs complaints that the handcuffs were too tight, see Burchett v. Kiefer, 310 F.3d 937, 944-45 (6th Cir.2002) (rejecting excessive-force claim as a matter of law where officers left defendant tightly 'handcuffed for three hours because defendant did not initially complain about the handcuffs, and when he did complain the officers responded promptly). Cf.

Martin, 106 F.3d at 1313 (finding district court erred by granting qualified immunity because officers handcuffed the defendant so tightly that his hands became numb and swollen, then failed to,respond to the defendant’s complaints of pain until 35 minutes later). Lyons cannot satisfy these requirements. She alleges little in the way of physical injuries caused by the handcuffing. And, more critically, she does not allege that her physical complaints to the officers went unheeded. To the contrary, she does not even claim that she told the officers that the handcuffs were too tight.

In the absence of an obvious physical problem caused by the handcuffs or a plea by the defendant to loosen them, it is fair to ask how a reasonable officer should know that a problem has occurred. These facts thus do not rise to the level of unconstitutionally excessive force. Because Lyons has failed to show that Officer Foubert used excessive force in handcuffing her, his request for qualified immunity should have been granted. C. In light of Brosseau, we now also extend qualified immunity to Officer Foubert on Lyons’ excessive-force tackling claim.

In doing so, we follow the two-step inquiry that Saucier required, see 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151, and that Brosseau did not alter, see 125 S.Ct. at 598 & n. 3. See Meyers v. Redwood City, 400 F.3d 765, 770 (9th Cir.2005). 1. First, “[t]aken in the light most favorable to the party asserting the injury, do the facts alleged show the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right?” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151. Speaking only for myself, I believe that they do not.

Whether Officer Foubert applied unconstitutionally excessive force in tackling Lyons turns on what a reasonable officer would have done under similar circumstances. The question is whether the undisputed facts “demonstrate that a hypothetical reasonable officer” would have “known that his actions, under the circumstances, were objectively unreasonable,” Scott v. Clay County, 205 F.3d 867, 877 (6th Cir.2000), not whether Officer Fou-bert used the least intrusive means available, see Scott v.

Henrich, 39 F.3d 912, 915 (9th Cir.1994) (“Officers thus need not avail themselves of the least intrusive means of responding to an exigent situation; they need only act within that range of conduct we identify as reasonable.”); see also Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U.S. 640, 103 S.Ct. 2605, 77 L.Ed.2d 65 (1983) (noting in the Fourth .Amendment context that reasonableness of governmental activity does not hinge on existence of a less-intrusive alternative). Three sets of undisputed facts support my conclusion that Lyons has failed to state a constitutional claim:

(1) Foubert was responding to a distressed call for backup help from a fellow officer who was inside a suspect’s home and outside the view of the public; (2) based on the nature of the call, the location of the encounter and Lyons’ admission that Foubert made a running unknocked-and-unannounced entry into the house, Foubert clearly (and fairly) believed that Keith was at risk; and (3) when Foubert entered the house, he saw Keith in close proximity to Lyons and the two of them yelling at each other.

Starting with the first point, the parties do not dispute the circumstances that prompted Foubert’s sudden arrival on the scene. It is undisputed that Keith was alone during this confrontation, that she was inside the suspect’s house and that she radioed Foubert for backup assistance when Lyons became agitated. When Fou-bert received the call, he detected a tone of distress in the voice of Keith, his partner of over two years, and he heard commotion in the background.

Lyons does not contradict this version of events and indeed confirms that the two women were screaming at each other at about the time of the radio call. Second, Lyons does not challenge Officer Foubert’s perception, or the reasonableness of his perception, that Officer Keith was in distress. After receiving the radio call, Foubert understandably feared for his partner’s safety. That Keith was inside the suspect’s residence — which contained an unknown number of persons and which was beyond public view — confirmed the perilousness of the situation.

Nor does Lyons challenge the constitutionality of Foubert’s decision to enter the house without a warrant and without knocking and announcing his presence, a form of entry that the Fourth Amendment permits only in certain emergency situations. See Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385, 394, 117 S.Ct. 1416, 137 L.Ed.2d 615 (1997) (“In order to justify a ‘no-knock’ entry, the police must have a reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing their presence, under the particular circumstances, would be dangerous or futile.”); United States v.

Johnson, 22 F.3d 674, 680 (6th Cir.1994) (describing the scope of the exigency exception to the warrant requirement, which encompasses “risk of danger to police or others”). While Lyons may not be in a position to contradict Foubert’s testimony that he thought something “was going wrong” with Officer Keith, she confirms his testimony that he ran into the house, noting that he came “charging” into her house “like a football player” running at “as full speed as you can go in a house.” Lyons has offered no explanation why it was unreasonable for Officer Foubert to do just that.

Third, when Foubert came running into the house, it is uncontradicted that he saw Keith and Lyons in close proximity to each other and that Lyons was considerably bigger than Keith. While Lyons denies that she was “wrestling” with Keith and denies punching her, she does not deny that at a minimum the two of them were in close proximity to each other and that considerable commotion and yelling surrounded the scene. See Lujan v.

Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 497 U.S. 871, 888, 110 S.Ct. 3177, 111 L.Ed.2d 695 (1990) (non-moving party must aver specific facts that contradict moving party’s version of the facts to receive favorable

interpretation of disputed evidence). Indeed, at oral argument, Lyons’ counsel agreed that the uncontra-dicted facts showed that the two women were “very close” to each other when Fou-bert rushed into the house and that the two women were yelling. Perceiving that Keith seemed scared and in need of assistance, Foubert proceeded to take control of the situation. Whether what happened next was a football-like “tackle” or the use of a “balance displacement technique” over a nearby chair (which is less of a euphemism than the reader might first suspect, see Palshook v.

Jarrett, 120 F.Supp.2d 641, 655-56 (N.D.Ohio 2000)) does not affect the reasonableness of Officer Foubert’s actions under the circumstances. Either way, it is uncontradicted that Lyons created an apparent threat of safety to an officer inside the confines of Lyons’ own home. And it is uncontradicted that whatever the nature of the physical contact between Lyons and Officer Foubert, it did not result in anything approaching a serious physical injury. On this record, it is difficult to second-guess Foubert’s decision quickly and aggressively to end the confrontation.

Had Foubert charged into a room in which Lyons and Keith were far apart from each other, it might have presented a different situation. That, however, is not what happened. See McVay v. Sisters of Mercy Health Sys., 399 F.3d 904, 908-09 (8th Cir.2005) (holding that tackling did not amount to excessive force given that “[plaintiff] was disoriented and exhibiting signs of lacking mental control, that he was barreling toward glass doors that [the police officer] knew would not open, and the rapid pace of events as [the police officer] raced to reach [the plaintiff]”); Smith v.

Ball State University, 295 F.3d 763, 771 (7th Cir.2002) (holding that “the officers’ minimal use of force was objectively reasonable given the totality of the circumstances,” when an officer arrived late to the scene of an apparent crime, perceived two of his fellow officers struggling with a resisting suspect, and tackled the suspect to the ground based on what he believed was going on). Where by contrast tackling has risen to the level of excessive force, that was because (1) the claimants did not pose a tenable threat to the officers’ safety, see Meredith v.

Erath, 342 F.3d 1057, 1061 (9th Cir.2003) (holding that it was objectively unreasonable to throw a lone woman to the ground for protesting a search warrant served by twelve IRS agents); Santos v. Gates, 287 F.3d 846, 854-56 (9th Cir.2002) (determining that a jury could find police used excessive force against the plaintiff by throwing him to the ground and breaking his back after he had dropped to his knees with his hands behind his head and was admittedly “passive”); McNew v. Pleasant, 1992 WL 162255, at *4 (N.D.Ill.

July 6, 1992) (holding that a jury could find that the police used excessive force against a plaintiff who was walking through a park and whom the officers tackled, kneed and injured after he did not immediately stop when requested); (2) the police did more than just tackle the suspect, see Phelps v. Coy, 286 F.3d 295, 298, 302 (6th Cir.2002) (court found constitutional violation for

summary judgment purposes where plaintiff alleged that officers tackled him, hit him, and slammed his head into the floor three times); Barlow v. Ground, 943 F.2d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir.1991) (police tackled suspect and put him in a punishing “pain compliance hold”); or (3) the police did not have an adequate level of suspicion to justify any seizure at all, see Goodson v. City of Corpus Christi, 202 F.3d 730, 740 (5th Cir.2000); cf. Vathekan v.

Prince George’s County, 154 F.3d 173, 180 (4th Cir.1998) (holding that a jury could find objectively unreasonable a police officer’s decision to set loose a police dog in a residential home without a verbal warning, when that dog mauled and seriously disfigured the plaintiff, who was sleeping at the time). Under these circumstances, I conclude that a constitutional violation has not been established in this instance. 2.

But even if that were not the case, even if Lyons in other words had established a cognizable constitutional claim, we hold that she cannot satisfy the second prong of the qualified-immunity inquiry.

As Brosseau makes clear, “[qualified immunity shields an officer from suit when she makes a decision that, even if constitutionally deficient, reasonably misapprehends the law governing the circumstances she confronted.” 125 S.Ct. at 599. “Because the focus is on whether the officer had fair notice that her conduct was unlawful,” Brosseau explains, “reasonableness is judged against the backdrop of the law at the time of the conduct.

If the law at that time did not clearly establish that the officer’s conduct would violate the Constitution, the officer-should not be subject to liability or, indeed, even the burdens of litigation.” Id.

Brosseau leaves open two paths for showing that officers were on notice that they were violating a “clearly established” constitutional right — where the violation was sufficiently “obvious” under the general standards of constitutional care that the plaintiff need not show “a body” of “materially similar” case law, id., and where the violation is shown by the failure to adhere to a “particularized” body of precedent that “squarely govern[s] the case here,” id. at 599-600. Lyons has not satisfied either requirement for showing the violation of a “clearly established” constitutional right.

First, the constitutional violation, if any, was by no means an “obvious” one that the “general [excessive-force] tests set out in Garner and Graham ... can ‘clearly establish’ ... even without a body of relevant case law.” Id. at 599.

Even accepting all of Lyons’ factual allegations as true, there is nothing “obvious” about what Officer Foubert should have done upon entering a house from which a fellow officer had just placed a distressed call for backup help and in which he could see immediately upon entering that the officer and resident were in close proximity to each other and in the middle of some form of confrontation. Indeed, neither at oral argument nor in any of the appellate briefs has Lyons or her counsel explained the obvious solution to the officer-safety problem faced by Officer Foubert.

Compare Hope, 536 U.S. at 741, 122 S.Ct. 2508 (noting that a right was clearly established when the “violation was so obvious that [the Court’s] own Eighth Amendment cases gave respondents fair warning that their conduct violated the Constitution”); see also Beard v. Whitmore Lake Sch.

Dist., 402 F.3d 598, 607 (6th Cir.2005) (noting that instructions “ ‘cast at a high level of generality’ will only be sufficient to clearly establish the unlawfulness of the defendants’ actions where the conduct at issue is ‘obviously’ -a violation based on the prior “ cases,” and finding that violation of a “two-pronged, multi-factor test [that] ... did little to explain how the factors should be applied in the wide variety of factual circumstances facing school officials today” was “not such an obvious case”). Second, no precedent “squarely governs the case here.” Brosseau, 125 S.Ct. at 600.

As the cases that we have canvassed fairly indicate, the standards governing the constitutionality of Lyons’ excessive-force tackling claim “depend[ ] very much on the facts of each case.” Id.

To that end, we have been unable to identify a single case predating the conduct at issue that prohibits tackling in a materially similar context. “Because the focus is on whether the officer had fair notice that her conduct was unlawful,” id. at 599, and because Officer Foubert’s actions, as in Brosseau, at best “fell in the ‘hazy border between excessive and acceptable force,’ ” id. at 600 (quoting Saucier, 533 U.S. at 206, 121 S.Ct. 2151), Lyons has failed to show the violation of a clearly established right in this more “particularized” sense. See Beard, 402 F.3d at 608; Randall v.

City of Fairbanks, 352 F.Supp.2d 1028, 1037 (D.Alaska 2005) (interpreting Brosseau to mean that the law is not clearly established when it is “heavily dependent on the specific facts of each case and no case squarely addresse[s] the facts of this case”); see also Saucier, 533 U.S. at 198, 209, 121 S.Ct. 2151 (granting qualified immunity to a police officer who half-dragged a protestor at a speech given by then-Vice President Gore and shoved or threw him inside a van after he unfurled a protest banner). Accordingly, Lyons’ excessive-force claim fails as a matter of law. III.

For these reasons, we reverse the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to Officers Keith and Foubert and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.