[E]ven taking all of Mr. Dannah’s descriptions of what happened in the shaky and dark moments as true, Mr. Dannah fails to point to caselaw categorizing the officers’ actions as excessive.
Fahirri Dannah v. City of Grand Rapids
Sixth Circuit Appellate Court
May 29, 2026
Why is this case important?
Dannah v. Grand Rapids reinforces a recurring Sixth Circuit theme: active resistance matters. Courts continue to distinguish sharply between force used against a compliant suspect and force used against a suspect who physically resists, flees or refuses commands. Most of the use of force litigation can be reduced to three words; Failure. To. Comply. For officers, the case confirms that when a suspect actively resists a lawful detention or frisk, officers may escalate force reasonably necessary to gain control, and qualified immunity will often protect them unless prior case law clearly establishes that the specific level of force used was unconstitutional.
Background
A Grand Rapids police officer frisked Fahirri Dannah during a traffic stop. Before the officer could complete the pat down, Mr. Dannah twisted away and started to run. Officers tackled him and wrestled with him until they could place handcuffs on him. Mr. Dannah filed this § 1983 action against several of the officers. The district court rejected the officers’ qualified-immunity defense, reasoning that a jury could find that they violated Mr. Dannah’s clearly established Fourth Amendment rights. Because the officers did not violate any clearly established law, we reverse.
Traffic Stop and Consent to Search
On the night of November 16, 2019, as Mr. Dannah and his girlfriend drove to a Taco Bell, officers stopped the vehicle for a traffic infraction. Mr. Dannah’s girlfriend, the driver, gave the officers permission to search her car. Officer Zachary Kaiser asked Mr. Dannah to exit the vehicle before the officers conducted the search.
Taco Bell 1014 Michigan St. N.E., Grand Rapids, Michigan
Officer Kaiser Attempts to Pat Down Mr. Dannah
As Mr. Dannah emerged from the vehicle, Officer Kaiser asked him to place his hands on top of his head and face away. Mr. Dannah, facing toward Officer Kaiser, moved his arms toward his waist and lifted his shirt, insisting that he did not have any weapons. Officer Kaiser again asked Mr. Dannah to place his hands on his head, nudging his arm upwards. Mr. Dannah, upset, moved an arm down, and Officer Kaiser grasped it and pulled it up toward Mr. Dannah’s head. Mr. Dannah and Officer Kaiser walked a few steps away to a police cruiser. As they stopped, Mr. Dannah moved his hands back to his waist again. Officer Kaiser said, “Hey—we’ve got to pat you down first, okay. Hands on top of your head,” and nudged Mr. Dannah’s arms back toward his head.
Mr. Dannah Failed to Comply and Tried to Run Away
Officer Kaiser asked Mr. Dannah whether there were any items he needed to know about. Mr. Dannah insisted that he did not have any weapons. Officer Kaiser began to pat Mr. Dannah down. He paused over Mr. Dannah’s right pocket and asked, “What’s this in your pocket here?” Mr. Dannah, starting to move, said, “Wait a minute, hold on –”, and brought his arms down. Several officers commanded Mr. Dannah to keep his hands on his head, but he kept moving. One of the officers shouted, “STOP!” Mr. Dannah escaped Officer Kaiser’s grasp and tried to run away.
Violent Struggle on the Ground
Mr. Dannah is Arrested
Officers grabbed Mr. Dannah and brought him to the ground. Mr. Dannah curled into a fetal position as several officers commanded, “Hands behind your back!” Mr. Dannah refused to release his hands held in front of him, prompting more struggle. Some officers tried to grasp Mr. Dannah’s arms to pull them behind him, punching him in the side as they wrestled with him. Other officers tried to grab Mr. Dannah’s legs as he flailed and leaned against Mr. Dannah’s body to stop his movement. Mr. Dannah fought against their efforts for several minutes. The officers eventually brought both of his arms back and handcuffed him. The officers arrested him for assault, battery, and resisting a police officer.
Mr. Dannah Sued for Unlawful Search, Seizure and Excessive Force
District Court Denied Qualified Immunity
Roughly two years after his arrest, Mr. Dannah sued the arresting officers and the City of Grand Rapids under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Officer Kaiser unlawfully searched and seized him and that several officers used excessive force. The officers moved for summary judgment on qualified-immunity grounds. The district court granted summary judgment to Officer Kaiser on Mr. Dannah’s search and seizure claims and to the City on his Monell claim. But the court denied qualified immunity on the excessive force claims against several officers. The officers appealed.
Qualified immunity
Mr. Dannah Did Not Establish that his Rights were Clearly Established
Qualified immunity saves officers “the time, expense and risk of money-damages actions unless they violate clearly established constitutional rights.” Moore v. Oakland County, 126 F.4th 1163, 1167 (6th Cir. 2025). That imperative requires Mr. Dannah to show that the officers violated a “constitutional right” and that the right was “clearly established.” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232, 236 (2009). Mr. Dannah has not established the latter, making it unnecessary to decide the former.
Established Case Law – Qualified Immunity
In identifying clearly established rights, a claimant must demonstrate that the contours of the right were “sufficiently clear” that “reasonable offic[ers] would understand” that their actions violated it. Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987). The Supreme Court has “repeatedly told courts” not to define rights at “a high level of generality.” Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 742 (2011). The claimant instead must identify precedent “with facts similar enough that it squarely governs” his case, Moore, 126 F.4th at 1167 showing “a violation beyond debate,” Aaron v. King, 171 F.4th 822, 826 (6th Cir. 2026). “[S]pecific cases are especially important” when it comes to discerning the context rich boundaries of “excessive” force. Bell v. City of Southfield, 37 F.4th 362, 367 (6th Cir. 2022).
No caselaw clearly establishes that this amount of force entered the forbidden territory of excessiveness, much less in an “obvious” way.
In this instance, no clearly established right prevented the officers from using force to rein in Mr. Dannah’s “volitional and conscious defiance” during the frisk. King v. City of Rockford, 97 F.4th 379, 396 (6th Cir. 2024). Consider the circumstances. Mr. Dannah refused to comply with the officers’ instruction from the start. When the officers pulled Mr. Dannah aside to conduct a frisk, he “kept placing his hands down by his waistband” even after repeated commands to place his hands on his head. R.99 at 8. The interaction devolved into a physical struggle when Mr. Dannah broke away from Officer Kaiser’s reach mid-frisk and tried to run away. Mr. Dannah’s active, physical resistance and potential threat “permit[ted] increasing exercises of force . . . to subdue [him].” Aaron, 171 F.4th at 827; see Moore, 126 F.4th at 1169. Officers hit and grabbed him only while “attempt[ing] to restrain” him as he flailed and kept his hands out. No caselaw clearly establishes that this amount of force entered the forbidden territory of excessiveness, much less in an “obvious” way. Rivas-Villegas v. Cortesluna, 595 U.S. 1, 6 (2021). After taking Mr. Dannah to the ground, officers tried to control him as he fought against them. One officer applied pressure to prevent him from getting up. Another officer tried to yank his arms or hold his legs. And at least one officer threw punches. The takedown allowed the officers to neutralize a reasonably perceived threat after an interrupted frisk. See Aaron, 171 F.4th at 826. The punches and yanking in this instance present no greater physical imposition than a typical tasing, which we have permitted in similar circumstances. See Bell, 37 F.4th at 368. Given an unalleviated concern about a weapon and given Mr. Dannah’s continued physical resistance, the officers’ choice to apply physical force until they could handcuff Mr. Dannah did not cross any clearly established lines. See Moore, 126 F.4th at 1169.
Mr. Dannah Misapplies Established Case Law
Mr. Dannah claims that LaPlante v. City of Battle Creek supports his position. 30 F.4th 572, 580 (6th Cir. 2022). But that case did not involve the kind of active, physical resistance the officers encountered here. LaPlante denied qualified immunity when an officer performed a takedown maneuver and held the suspect down by laying on top of him. Id. at 576 n.8, 580. But that case did not deal with escalating police measures in response to escalating resistance. We instead found “genuine disputes of fact regarding whether [the plaintiff] resisted arrest” in the first place. Id. at 580. No such dispute exists here. Mr. Dannah started the struggle by wrenching away from Officer Kaiser’s reach before the end of the frisk. See Moore, 126 F.4th at 1169. Mr. Dannah admits that he resisted the frisk, and body camera footage confirms that he continued this resistance on the ground. LaPlante does not remotely alert the officers that their conduct violated the Fourth Amendment.
The same goes for Grawey v. Drury, 567 F.3d 302, 314 (6th Cir. 2009), the only other case Mr. Dannah offers. Grawey involved a physical assault on an unconscious suspect. Id. Whatever else one can say about Mr. Dannah’s flailing and yelling throughout the encounter, it did not involve the behavior of an unconscious person.
Mr. Dannah fails to point to caselaw categorizing the officers’ actions as excessive.
Mr. Dannah insists that the officers’ body camera footage, shaky and dark in some spots, permits too many alternative versions of the incident to allow for summary judgment. But the footage establishes the material facts: Mr. Dannah bolted from the frisk; the officers performed takedown in response to his escape; Mr. Dannah continued to resist on the ground; and the officers applied increasing physical force in response to his continued resistance. See Scott, 550 U.S. at 380–81. No less importantly, even taking all of Mr. Dannah’s descriptions of what happened in the shaky and dark moments as true, Mr. Dannah fails to point to caselaw categorizing the officers’ actions as excessive.
Conclusion and Holding
Mr. Dannah makes much of the fact that the officers did not find any weapons or drugs on him after his arrest, permitting the inference (he says) that they never should have frisked him in the first instance. But that argument assumes that an opposite inference is possible—that, when officers discover drugs or guns on a suspect, such an after-the-search development supports their actions. That is wrong. See United States v. Beauchamp, 659 F.3d 560, 571 (6th Cir. 2011). Neither inference in fact is true. What matters is whether a reasonable officer in this situation would have had a legitimate reason to conduct this frisk and to take the subsequent actions these officers did to protect their safety.
Information for this case was obtained from Fahirri Dannah v. City of Grand Rapids, No. 25 – 1416 (6th Cir., 2026)
Fahirri Dannah v. City of Grand Rapids, No. 25 – 1416 (6th Cir., 2026) was issued on May 26, 2026 by the Sixth Circuit Appellate Court and is binding in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee.
Lessons Learned
What is Qualified Immunity? – The U.S. Supreme Court established Qualified Immunity on June 24, 1982; “Qualified immunity shields government officials [police officers] from civil liability in the performance of their duties so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a person would have known.”. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982). Of course, what level of court can ‘previous establish’ Qualified Immunity is open for debate. Must the previous case be issued only by the U.S. Supreme Court? A federal circuit court? State supreme court? This remains an open question. Also, if a law enforcement officer [other government official] obtains Qualified Immunity then the plaintiff’s lawsuit cannot proceed. On May 27, 2014 the U.S. Supreme Court clarified Qualified Immunity and opined “[A] defendant cannot be said to have violated a clearly established right unless the right’s contours were sufficiently definite that any reasonable official in defendant’s shoes would have understood that he was violating it.”. Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765 (2014). In this case Mr. Dannah did not identify an established case that was similar to his incident as the court opined “No caselaw clearly establishes that this amount of force entered the forbidden territory of excessiveness, much less in an “obvious” way.”. Because Mr. Dannah did not identify a similar case the Grand Rapids Police Officers were granted Qualified Immunity.
Failure to Comply – On January 23, 2025 the Sixth Circuit issued Moore v. Oakland County, 126 F.4th 1163, 1167 (6th Cir. 2025) and opined “An officer may use force to restrain someone who actively resists by physically struggling with police, threatening them, resisting handcuffs, or acting erratically. If an arrestee “kick[s], flail[s], and wriggl[es] away” from an arresting officer’s grasp, or “repeatedly pull[s] his left arm away” from “an officer’s handcuffs officers may use a taser to restrain him.” The more a suspect increases his resistance and violence, law enforcement may also increase the level of force to restrain the suspect. In this case Mr. Dannah repeatedly failed to comply, increased his resistance and the Grand Rapids Police Officers increased their level of force until they could work in concert and handcuff Mr. Dannah. All of this could have been avoided if Mr. Dannah complied with the repeated lawful orders of the Grand Rapids Police.
Body Worn Camera – One of the most important aspects of Dannah is not the force itself, but the evidence used to evaluate the force. The Sixth Circuit repeatedly relied on body-camera footage to determine what actually occurred during the encounter. Rather than accepting competing descriptions of the event, the court reviewed the video and focused on what the cameras objectively showed. The footage documented that Dannah repeatedly failed to comply and moved his hands despite lawful commands, pulled away from the officer during the frisk, attempted to flee, and continued resisting officers’ efforts to handcuff him on the ground. Because the video captured the progression of resistance, the court was able to evaluate the officers’ use of force in context rather than as isolated moments frozen in time. The lesson for officers is clear. Activate your body camera early and provide verbal commands that are clearly audible on the recording. Commands such as “You are under arrest!”, “Show me your hands,” “Stop resisting,” “Put your hands behind your back,” and similar instructions not only help gain compliance but also create a record demonstrating why force became objectively reasonable. In many excessive-force cases, the most important evidence is not the force itself—it is the suspect’s actions immediately before the force was used. This was reinforced on May 15, 2025 when the U.S. Supreme Court issued Barnes v. Felix, 605 U.S. _____ (2025) and made clear law enforcement use of force will be based on the totality of the circumstances.
Are Officers Required to Be Right or Objectively Reasonable? The legality of a frisk or use of force is evaluated by what the officer reasonably knew at the time of the encounter, not by what officers discovered afterward. Courts do not use hindsight to evaluate Fourth Amendment decisions. The fact that officers ultimately found no weapons or contraband on Mr. Dannah did not make the frisk unlawful any more than finding a weapon would automatically make it lawful. The proper question is whether a reasonable officer, faced with the same facts and circumstances at the moment the decision was made, would have believed that a frisk and subsequent use of force were objectively reasonable for officer safety. Officers should focus on articulating the facts that created their concern at the time of the encounter, because constitutional reasonableness is measured by what was known before the search, not what was discovered after it. This underscores the value of narrating into the BWC in real time what you observe and the suspects actions in case some of the action is not captured on the video.
Pre-Sent Arms! Grand Rapids Police Officer Zachary Kaiser, the unidentified Grand Rapids Police Officers and the Grand Rapids Law Department should all be highly commended for the investigation, use of force, arrest and successful defense of this lawsuit. Well done!
Does your agency train on Use of Force?
Don’t fail your training.
Don’t let your training fail you!
Be safe, smart and objectively reasonable!