Eleventh Circuit Denies Qualified Immunity to Officer Who Choked and Punched a Subdued Driver

Is a police officer who choked and punched a subdued driver entitled to qualified immunity? That was the question addressed by the Eleventh Circuit in its recent opinion in Jones v. Ceinski, 2025 WL 1338079 (11th Cir. 2025).

In Ceinski, 

When Officer David Ceinski stopped Jeremy Jones for a traffic infraction, Jones complied with Ceinski’s instructions to exit his car and provide his driver’s license and vehicle registration. Jones also volunteered his concealed carry permit and informed the officer that his firearm was inside the car. After Ceinski saw the firearm “[u]nder the driver’s seat,” while Jones stood in front of the car, Ceinski grabbed his wrist, twisted him, and pushed him against the car. After Jones was subdued, Ceinski choked him until he could not breathe and punched him on the top of his head.

Jones thereafter filed a complaint against Ceinski under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that he used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. A magistrate granted Ceinski’s motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, setting the stage for the Eleventh Circuit’s opinion.

In reversing and finding that qualified immunity did not apply, the Eleventh Circuit ruled that

Ceinski had fair warning that his use of a chokehold and punch on Jones after he was subdued, compliant, and could not access his firearm violated Jones’s right to be free from excessive force. We have long held that “a police officer violates the Fourth Amendment, and is denied qualified immunity, if he or she uses gratuitous and excessive force against a suspect who is under control, not resisting, and obeying commands.”…Because controlling caselaw placed the illegality of Ceinski’s chokehold and punch “beyond debate,” Ceinski is not immune from suit for that conduct. 

-CM