Kiles

MEMORANDUM **

Robinson Reed appeals the district court’s denial of qualified immunity in this Section 1983 excessive force suit. We affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case, we need not recount it here.

To determine whether a government employee is entitled to qualified immunity, we apply the familiar two-part test set forth by the Supreme Court in Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001). First, we must determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, Reed violated Kiles’ constitutional rights. Id. If we determine that a constitutional violation has occurred, we must then determine whether Kiles’ rights were clearly established at the time of the violation. Id.

Construing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, we agree with the district court that triable issues of material fact exist as to whether Reed used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The victim claims that he obeyed Officer Reed’s instruction to stop. The victim denies that he made any “furtive movement” towards his waist, a claim that is also supported by…