Clarifying Qualified Immunity Limits for Excessive Force on Compliant Detainees

Introduction

Frosch v. Alsobrook is a 2025 Fifth Circuit decision that sharpens the boundary between permissible police tactics and excessive force, and confirms when qualified immunity does not shield an officer. Plaintiff‐Appellee Ricky Allen Frosch sued Corporal Colton Alsobrook after Alsobrook allegedly slammed Frosch’s head into a booking‐area wall and then onto the floor, causing a head laceration and broken collarbone. At the time, Frosch was handcuffed, restrained and fully compliant. The district court denied Alsobrook’s motion for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity, and Alsobrook appealed.

Key issues presented:

Whether certain post‐discovery declarations constitute inadmissible “sham affidavits” or untimely evidence;
Whether, under clearly established Fourth Amendment law, slamming a compliant, non‐resisting detainee’s head into a wall and floor is excessive force;
Whether Corporal Alsobrook is entitled to qualified immunity.

Summary of the Judgment

The Fifth Circuit, speaking through a per curiam opinion, affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity. On evidentiary matters, the court held: (1) Frosch’s post‐discovery declaration was not a “sham affidavit” because it did not contain inherently contradictory statements, and (2) it was properly admitted despite its late production, as it was prepared in response to Alsobrook’s summary‐judgment arguments. On the merits of qualified immunity, the court applied the familiar two‐step framework:

Did Alsobrook violate Frosch’s clearly established Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force? Yes. Frosch was fully restrained, compliant and non‐threatening, yet suffered serious injuries.
Was that right clearly established at the time? Yes. Binding Fifth Circuit precedents made it “beyond debate” that forcibly slamming a handcuffed, nonresisting individual violates the Fourth Amendment.

The court therefore held that Alsobrook is not entitled to qualified immunity and affirmed the denial of summary judgment.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The panel surveyed a range of Fifth Circuit and Supreme Court authority:

Rogers v. Bromac Title Servs. (755 F.3d 347, 353): Requires courts to construe all disputed facts in favor of the non‐moving plaintiff when reviewing a denial of qualified immunity;
Wagner v. Bay City (227 F.3d 316, 320): Limits appellate review to the materiality, not the genuineness, of factual disputes;
Winzer v. Kaufman County (916 F.3d 464, 472): Defines the “sham affidavit” rule and its high bar for excluding contradictory sworn statements;
Guillory v. Domtar Indus. (95 F.3d 1320, 1329): Governs abuse‐of‐discretion review of evidentiary rulings;
Mitchell v. Forsyth (472 U.S. 511, 530): Establishes de novo review of legal questions underlying qualified immunity denials;
Graham v. Connor (490 U.S. 386, 396): Lays out the Fourth Amendment excessive‐force reasonableness factors (severity of the crime, threat posed, resistance level);
Elizondo v. Green (671 F.3d 506, 510) and Byrd v. Cornelius (52 F.4th 265, 270): Provide the three‐part test for excessive‐force claims (injury, clear excessiveness, clear unreasonableness);
Cooper v. Brown (844 F.3d 517, 524) and Bush v. Strain (513 F.3d 492, 502): Emphasize that force against a subdued or non‐resisting individual must be minimal;
Curran v. Aleshire (800 F.3d 656, 661): Holds that head‐slamming a handcuffed person twice into a wall is an obvious Fourth Amendment violation, foreclosing qualified immunity.

Legal Reasoning

The court first addressed evidentiary challenges. Under the “sham affidavit” doctrine, only inherently inconsistent affidavits may be disregarded. Frosch’s declaration clarified that he never threatened to kill or harm jail staff, reconciling apparent gaps in prior testimony; it did not trigger the sham‐affidavit rule. As to timing, evidence prepared in response to summary‐judgment motions is routinely admitted even if it post‐dates discovery.

Turning to qualified immunity, the court applied the Supreme Court’s two‐step test: Step 1: Did Alsobrook violate Frosch’s Fourth Amendment right? The facts, viewed in Frosch’s favor, show he was handcuffed, complaint and nonthreatening when Alsobrook slammed his head into a wall and then used 300 pounds of force to throw him to the floor, causing a head laceration and broken collarbone. That conduct was “clearly excessive” and “clearly unreasonable.”

Step 2: Was the unlawfulness “clearly established” in June 2022? Yes. Fifth Circuit precedents like Curran held that force against a non‐resisting, handcuffed detainee is obviously unlawful. A reasonable officer in Alsobrook’s position “should have known” such conduct would violate the Constitution.

Impact

This decision reinforces important guardrails in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence:

It underscores that officers lose qualified immunity when they deploy significant force against compliant, restrained individuals;
It clarifies that summary‐judgment evidence prepared after discovery is generally admissible when responsive to new arguments;
It gives lower courts a clear template for balancing evidentiary rulings with the materiality/genuineness distinction in interlocutory qualified immunity appeals;
It signals to law enforcement agencies that training and policies must emphasize restraint and respect for detainees’ rights, even during post‐arrest processing.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Sham Affidavit Doctrine: Courts exclude affidavits that blatantly contradict prior sworn testimony. Minor or reconcilable discrepancies do not trigger the rule.
Qualified Immunity: A judicially created shield protecting officers from money damages unless they violate a right that was “clearly established” at the time of the incident.
Excessive Force (Fourth Amendment): Force that is objectively unreasonable in light of the facts and circumstances, including the suspect’s resistance level and threat posed.
Interlocutory Appeal: An appeal of a non‐final order, such as denial of qualified immunity, permitted by statute to avoid trial on claims later shown to be barred.

Conclusion

Frosch v. Alsobrook crystallizes the principle that an officer’s use of force against a subdued, compliant detainee—especially a head‐first slam into a wall and floor—is not protected by qualified immunity. By affirming the denial of summary judgment, the Fifth Circuit reiterated that once resistance ceases, any additional force causing serious injury crosses the constitutional line. This ruling strengthens detainee protections under the Fourth Amendment and provides clear guidance to officers, lawyers and courts on the limits of qualified immunity and lawful force.