When Pepper Spray Becomes Excessive Force: Fifth Circuit Says Distance, Threat, and Restraint Matter

Sanchez v. Nunemaker, No. 25-50596 (5th Cir. June 23, 2026)

TL;DR

The Fifth Circuit held that a deputy was not entitled to qualified immunity after allegedly deploying a high-velocity pepper spray device directly into the eye of a handcuffed, seat-belted suspect from approximately half the manufacturer's recommended minimum safe distance.

Although the suspect had been arrested for serious crimes and remained disruptive, the court emphasized that the constitutional analysis turns on the threat posed at the moment force is used, not the seriousness of the underlying offense. The opinion is an important reminder that the manner in which less-lethal force is deployed can be just as important as the decision to use it.

The Facts

In June 2023, a Medina County, Texas deputy stopped a vehicle that had been reported stolen and allegedly used during an aggravated robbery. The driver, 17-year-old Branden Sanchez, complied with commands to exit the vehicle, was handcuffed, and was secured in the rear seat of the deputy's patrol vehicle. While the deputy searched the vehicle over the next fifty minutes, four additional officers arrived on scene. During the search, deputies located drugs, a rifle-style pellet gun, and other items inside the vehicle.

While seated in the patrol car, Sanchez repeatedly yelled, kicked the cruiser doors, and demanded to be taken to jail. He later shifted around inside the rear seat, complained that his handcuffs were too tight, and refused repeated commands to remain seated. The deputy physically forced Sanchez back into position, causing his head to strike the patrol car partition. When Sanchez resumed kicking the doors and yelling, the deputy opened the opposite rear door and deployed a Centurion Law Enforcement Deployment System (CLE)—a high-velocity pepper spray device—toward Sanchez's face from approximately 3.6 feet away, despite the manufacturer's recommended minimum deployment distance of seven feet. According to the complaint, the spray struck Sanchez directly in the left eye, permanently blinding him.

Sanchez filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging excessive force. The deputy asserted qualified immunity and moved to dismiss the lawsuit. The district court denied the motion, and the deputy appealed to the Fifth Circuit.

The Issue

Did the deputy violate clearly established Fourth Amendment law by deploying a high-velocity pepper spray device directly into the face of a handcuffed, seat-belted suspect who was secured inside a patrol vehicle and no longer posed an immediate threat?

The Court's Holding

No qualified immunity.

Accepting the plaintiff's allegations as true—as required at the motion-to-dismiss stage—the Fifth Circuit held that Sanchez plausibly alleged both an excessive force violation and the violation of clearly established law. The district court's denial of qualified immunity was affirmed.

The Court's Reasoning

The Graham Factors Still Control

The Fifth Circuit began with the familiar framework established in Graham v. Connor, explaining that the reasonableness of force must always be evaluated under the totality of the circumstances.

The court examined the three considerations: the severity of the crime, whether the suspect posed an immediate threat to officers or others, and whether he was actively resisting or attempting to flee.

The court had little difficulty acknowledging that the first factor favored the deputy. Sanchez was suspected of participating in an aggravated robbery, was driving a reportedly stolen vehicle, and officers located weapons and narcotics during the search. Those facts unquestionably justified a cautious approach.

The remaining Graham factors, however, drove the court's analysis.

The Threat Had Changed

The Fifth Circuit emphasized a principle that appears repeatedly throughout excessive force cases: courts evaluate the threat that exists when force is applied—not simply the threat that existed when the encounter began.

Although Sanchez continued kicking the doors, yelling, and refusing commands, the court focused on several facts that substantially reduced the threat level. Sanchez was handcuffed, restrained by a seat belt inside the patrol vehicle, surrounded by five officers, was not attempting to flee, and no longer had access to weapons. Under those circumstances, a reasonable jury could conclude that he did not pose an immediate threat to officer safety or the public at the moment the pepper spray was deployed.

The opinion serves as a reminder that officers should continually reassess a suspect's threat level as circumstances evolve. The seriousness of the original offense does not permanently justify higher levels of force.

How the Force Was Applied Mattered

The court also focused heavily on the manner in which the pepper spray was used.

This was not an ordinary OC deployment. According to the complaint, the deputy used a high-velocity pepper spray system, fired it directly into Sanchez's eye, and did so from approximately half the manufacturer's recommended minimum safe distance.

Those allegations significantly influenced the court's analysis. While manufacturer recommendations do not establish constitutional standards by themselves, the court viewed the alleged departure from those recommendations as relevant evidence that the force may have been objectively unreasonable.

For trainers, this is an important lesson. Technical aspects of less-lethal tools—including deployment distance, targeting, and manufacturer guidance—may become significant evidence during civil litigation.

Ramirez Put Officers on Notice

The deputy argued that no clearly established law prohibited his actions.

The Fifth Circuit disagreed, relying primarily on Ramirez v. Martinez, a 2013 Fifth Circuit decision involving repeated TASER applications against a suspect who had already been restrained.

Although Ramirez involved a conducted electrical weapon rather than pepper spray, the court concluded that the underlying constitutional principle was the same. Once a suspect has been restrained and no longer poses an immediate threat, officers may not continue using significant force simply because the suspect remains noncompliant. Ramirez provided sufficient notice that similar conduct would violate the Fourth Amendment.

The opinion reinforces that clearly established law does not always require a case involving the identical weapon. What matters is whether existing precedent places reasonable officers on notice that the conduct is unconstitutional.

Why the Deputy's Cases Didn't Apply

The deputy relied heavily on Brothers v. Zoss and Baldwin v. Stalder, but the Fifth Circuit found both decisions materially different.

In Brothers, officers forcibly removed an intoxicated suspect from an elevated pickup truck because he still had access to the vehicle and potentially could have used it as a weapon. In contrast, Sanchez had already been removed from his vehicle, handcuffed, restrained, and secured inside the patrol car.

Likewise, Baldwin involved officers attempting to restore order during a volatile prison disturbance involving nineteen inmates near an armory. There, officers dispersed pepper spray generally down the center aisle of a prison bus—not directly into an individual's face at close range.

Because both cases involved substantially greater safety concerns, neither justified the force alleged in Sanchez.

Street Takeaways

• Threats are dynamic. Courts evaluate the threat that exists when force is applied—not simply the seriousness of the original offense.

• Restraint changes the analysis. A handcuffed, seat-belted suspect surrounded by officers presents a far different constitutional question than an unsecured suspect.

• Noncompliance alone does not equal immediate danger. Officers should clearly articulate why a suspect's actions created an actual safety threat rather than merely describing resistance or refusal to obey commands.

• Know your equipment. Manufacturer guidance, recommended deployment distances, and departmental training may become important evidence when courts evaluate objective reasonableness.

• Qualified immunity often turns on details. Small factual differences regarding the suspect's threat level, degree of restraint, and the manner of force can determine whether qualified immunity applies.

Disclaimer

This case summary is provided for educational and training purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Officers should always follow their agency's policies, applicable state law, and current federal and state case law governing use of force. Because legal standards continue to evolve, readers should consult agency legal advisors or counsel regarding specific factual situations.