Krueger v. Phillips (10th Cir. 2025): Definitive Liability for Prolonged Prone Restraints and the Expanded Duty to Intervene

Introduction

The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, in Krueger v. Phillips, affirms the denial of qualified immunity to eight law-enforcement officers stemming from the death of Jeffrey Krueger during a traffic stop in Wagoner County, Oklahoma. The decision synthesises and strengthens earlier strands of excessive-force jurisprudence, clarifying that (1) the use of a prolonged prone restraint on a handcuffed suspect who has ceased meaningful resistance is per se unreasonable, and (2) every officer present—no matter how brief or minor the contact—possesses an immediate duty to intervene once the excessive nature of the force becomes apparent.

Summary of the Judgment

• The district court denied summary judgment to the deputies and city officers who had sought qualified immunity on claims of excessive force and failure to intervene.

• On interlocutory appeal the Tenth Circuit—after conducting an unusually detailed, de novo “cumbersome review” of body-camera footage, dispatch logs, photographs, medical reports, and inconsistent officer testimony—affirmed in full.

• Key holdings:

Pulling a non-violent misdemeanant from his car by the hair and slamming his head on asphalt constitutes excessive force under clearly established law (Davis v. Clifford).
Deploying a taser in drive-stun mode after a suspect has been subdued is unconstitutional (Perea v. Baca; Booker).
Applying body-weight to a handcuffed, leg-restrained suspect in the prone position for >3–4 minutes is excessive force regardless of any continuing but ineffective “kicking.” (Weigel, Booker, refined by Teetz).
An officer who merely places a foot or knee on any part of the suspect—or who watches from a few feet away—has both direct and derivative (failure-to-intervene) liability.
Appellate courts may comb the record and correct district-court fact-statements where (a) facts are omitted, (b) video blatantly contradicts findings, or (c) the lower court committed legal error en route to its fact recitation.

Analysis

A. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) – The foundational three-factor test (severity, immediacy of threat, resistance) frames the entire analysis.
Weigel v. Broad, 544 F.3d 1143 (10th Cir. 2008) – First Tenth-Circuit recognition that pressure on a prone, cuffed, leg-bound suspect for minutes is deadly force.
Estate of Booker v. Gomez, 745 F.3d 405 (10th Cir. 2014) – Clarified that combined applications of weight and taser on a subdued arrestee violate the Fourth Amendment and that all participating officers share liability.
Perea v. Baca, 817 F.3d 1198 (10th Cir. 2016) – Ten tasings of a misdemeanant deemed disproportionate; here used to show repeated drive-stun deployments are unlawful once control is gained.
Davis v. Clifford, 825 F.3d 1131 (10th Cir. 2016) – Hair-pull and window drag of a traffic offender deemed excessive; provides near-identical factual precedent for the head-slam portion of Krueger.
Fogarty v. Gallegos, 523 F.3d 1147 (10th Cir. 2008) & Booker – Supply the template for failure-to-intervene liability even when the officer’s own force is minimal.
Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (1995) & Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) – Ground the appellate jurisdiction portion of the opinion, authorising record-corrections when video “blatantly contradicts” findings.

B. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

Re-construction of Facts – Because the district court’s narrative omitted the number of tasings, resistance-level, and officers’ body-weight placement, the panel undertook a line-by-line review of every evidentiary source.
Two-Part Qualified-Immunity Inquiry – The court resolved both prongs:
- Constitutional Violation: force disproportionate to misdemeanor/low-level felony behaviour once Krueger was under control.
- Clearly Established: binding circuit cases & “obviousness” doctrine placed officers on notice.
Group Liability Doctrine – Re-affirming that excessive-force analyses may aggregate officer conduct at summary-judgment stage; each participant (or non-intervening observer) is answerable for the whole.
Expanded Duty to Intervene – Presence + opportunity + observation = obligation, even if the window to act is measured in seconds.
Deadly-Force Characterisation – By recognising positional asphyxia and the 665-pound body-weight differential, the panel implicitly classifies prone restraint as potentially deadly force, triggering stricter scrutiny.

C. Potential Impact of the Judgment

Training and Policy – Departments in the Tenth Circuit will need to retrain on positional asphyxia, leg shackles, hobble ties, and post-restraint monitoring; expect revised taser policies emphasising cessation after control.
Litigation Strategy – Plaintiffs may use Krueger to defeat qualified-immunity motions where multiple officers apply even brief weight to a subdued suspect.
Body-Camera Management – The panel’s discomfort with missing video foreshadows stricter adverse-inference rulings at district-court level.
Appellate Practice – Provides a roadmap for when circuits may pierce Johnson’s fact-barrior and rebuild the record on appeal.
Broader Law-Enforcement Culture – Places affirmative pressure on officers to speak up, remove knees, roll suspects onto their side, or risk personal liability.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Qualified Immunity

A two-step shield that protects officers unless (1) they violated a constitutional right and (2) that right was already “clearly established.” Courts may decide either prong first.

Prone Restraint / Positional Asphyxia

“Prone restraint” means pinning a person face-down. If the chest or back is compressed—especially with handcuffs and leg shackles—lung expansion is impaired, potentially causing asphyxiation.

Drive-Stun Taser Mode

The taser’s probes are not fired; instead, the device is pressed directly onto the skin, causing intense pain without full neuromuscular incapacitation. Designed for brief, last-resort applications, not repeated pain-compliance once a suspect is under control.

Hobble Tie vs. Hog Tie

A hobble tie links ankles to wrists with a longer strap or chain (14-18 inches). A hog tie uses <12 inches and is generally prohibited because it sharply bends the torso, heightening asphyxia risk.

“Cumbersome Review” Exception

Ordinarily appellate courts accept the district court’s version of facts on interlocutory qualified-immunity appeals. However, if key facts are omitted, legally mis-categorised, or flatly contradicted by video, the circuit may re-examine the entire record.

Conclusion

Krueger v. Phillips is now the Tenth Circuit’s most thorough exposition on excessive force involving head-slams, repeated drive-stun taser use, and prolonged prone restraints. It cements two practical rules: (1) once a suspect is handcuffed and effectively subdued, any continued application of force—including body-weight, taser, or blows—is constitutionally excessive; and (2) every officer who sees such force, even for moments, must intervene or face liability. The judgment also underscores the judiciary’s willingness to mine body-camera footage and other objective evidence to correct incomplete district-court fact-findings. Going forward, municipal entities within the Tenth Circuit—and quite possibly nationwide—must re-evaluate restraint techniques, emphasise post-arrest positional safety, and instil a culture of immediate peer intervention.