In making arrests, maintaining order, and defending life, law enforcement officers are allowed to use whatever force is "reasonably" necessary.
The breadth and scope of the use of force is vast%u2014from just the physical presence of the officer%u2026to the use of deadly force.
Violations of federal law occur when it can be shown that the force used was willfully "unreasonable" or "excessive."
The Arrestee did not attack the officers; indeed at no time did he even threaten to attack any of them, or their dog. The Arrestee asserts that his failure to uncurl his arm from under his body was a reasonable effort to protect himself against an unreasonably excessive use of deadly force in the form of Quando, a police canine.
Even excluding the question of whether the police dog constituted deadly force, a jury well could find that, given the circumstances, the totality of force used %u2014 four blasts of pepper spray, slamming The Arrestee down onto the porch, dragging him off the porch face down, ordering the canine to attack him three times, and the resultant dog bites and physical assaults on his body was unreasonable. See Santos, 287 F.3d at 853-54 (shoving can amount to excessive force when it is (unreasonable); Headwaters Forest Defense v. County of Humboldt, 276 F.3d 1125, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding that the use of pepper spray on non-violent protestors was excessive force); Watkins v. City of Oakland, 145 F.3d 1087, 1093 (9th Cir. 1998) (holding that deputies%u2019 use of a police dog is subject to excessive force analysis); Mendoza v. Block, 27 F.3d 1357, 1362 (9th Cir. 1994) (same). In sum, The Arrestee has submitted a substantial amount of evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the force used against him was excessive.
