Lawrence v. Kenosha County
391 F.3d 837 (7th Cir. 2004)
Holding
The Seventh Circuit held that an officer's use of a chokehold and other physical force against a compliant arrestee was objectively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, and that qualified immunity did not protect the officer because the right to be free from gratuitous force was clearly established.
What Happened
Darrick Lawrence was arrested by Kenosha County, Wisconsin law enforcement officer Louis Vena. Lawrence alleged that during the arrest, Officer Vena used excessive physical force against him despite his compliance and lack of resistance. The force included a chokehold and other violent physical contact that caused injuries. Lawrence filed a § 1983 action against both Officer Vena and Kenosha County, alleging excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
What the Court Said
The Seventh Circuit, in an opinion joined by Judges Posner, Kanne, and Williams, held that the force used by Officer Vena was objectively unreasonable under the Graham v. Connor standard. The court emphasized that when a suspect is not resisting, not attempting to flee, and the underlying offense is not severe, the use of significant physical force — particularly a chokehold — is constitutionally excessive. The court denied qualified immunity, finding that the right to be free from gratuitous physical force during an arrest was clearly established at the time of the incident.
Why This Case Matters
Lawrence v. Kenosha County is a key Seventh Circuit precedent for excessive force claims in Wisconsin. With 286 citations, it is frequently cited in cases involving police use of force against compliant individuals. For pro se litigants, this case is valuable because it demonstrates that the Seventh Circuit takes seriously the prohibition against using violent force on people who are cooperating. The involvement of Judge Posner, one of the most influential federal appellate judges, adds weight to the opinion. If you were roughed up by police during an arrest despite not resisting, this case provides strong support for your claim — and its defeat of qualified immunity shows that courts will hold officers accountable.