Words Are Not Resistance: Sixth Circuit Denies Qualified Immunity for Force Following Verbal Confrontation

Steger v. Willis, No. 25-6006 (6th Cir. July 21, 2026)

TL;DR

Police responded to a theft complaint and encountered the suspect standing behind an iron gate on his own front porch. The encounter became heated. The suspect refused to provide identification, told officers to get off his property, and ultimately yelled, “Fuck you!” at one of the officers.

According to the plaintiff’s version of events—which the court was required to accept at the qualified-immunity stage—the officer immediately slammed the gate into him, drove him to the ground, and punched him twice before handcuffing him.

The Sixth Circuit denied qualified immunity.

Being argumentative, obnoxious, or verbally hostile is not the same as physically resisting police. Where a person poses no immediate threat and is not actively resisting, clearly established law prohibits officers from responding with gratuitous physical force.

Facts

In 2023, Stephanie Yung called Covington, Kentucky police and reported that her neighbor, Melvin Steger, had stolen her insulin pump after she accidentally dropped it outside her house.

Officers Steven Willis and Mandie Appleman responded, spoke briefly with Yung, and then walked next door.

Steger was standing on his front porch behind an iron gate.

Willis’s body-worn camera recorded the encounter.

Willis asked Steger whether he had the insulin pump. Steger admitted seeing it in the street but denied taking it.

During the conversation, Steger put his hand into his pocket. Willis instructed him to keep his hands out of his pockets. Steger ignored the instruction and removed a cellphone, which he then used to record the officers.

The interaction became increasingly contentious.

Willis asked Steger for identification.

Steger refused.

Steger told the officers to get a warrant and yelled:

“Get off my fucking property.”

Willis responded:

“Hey, don’t cuss, man.”

Steger replied:

“Fuck you!”

According to the facts viewed in Steger’s favor, Willis immediately slammed the iron gate forward with both hands, striking Steger and knocking him backward.

Willis then stepped onto the porch, grabbed Steger by his arm and shirt, drove him to the ground, and handcuffed him face-down with Appleman’s assistance.

Steger alleged that Willis also punched him twice during the takedown.

Police charged Steger with several offenses, including disorderly conduct, theft, assaulting an officer, and resisting arrest. He was ultimately convicted of theft.

Steger then sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Willis sought summary judgment based on qualified immunity.

The district court denied qualified immunity, and Willis appealed.

Issue

Does an officer violate clearly established Fourth Amendment law by using significant physical force against a verbally hostile suspect who, under the plaintiff’s version of events, poses no immediate threat and is not actively resisting arrest?

Holding

Yes.

The Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of qualified immunity. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Steger, a reasonable jury could conclude that

Willis slammed the gate into him, drove him to the ground, and punched him twice without warning, even though Steger posed no immediate threat and was not actively resisting arrest.

The court further held that existing Sixth Circuit precedent clearly established that a non-resisting person who poses no safety threat has a right to be free from gratuitous physical force.

Reasoning

Start With Graham

The Sixth Circuit analyzed the force under the familiar framework of Graham v. Connor.

The court considered:

• the severity of the suspected offense;

• whether Steger posed an immediate threat; and

• whether he was actively resisting arrest.

On the facts a jury could find, each factor weighed against the force used.

Severity of the Offense

The court focused on disorderly conduct occurring on Steger’s own front porch and characterized the alleged offense as not serious.

Although officers were also investigating the reported theft of an insulin pump, the court’s excessive-force analysis focused upon the circumstances immediately confronting Willis when force was used.

Immediate Threat

The court found evidence from which a jury could conclude Steger posed no immediate threat.

An iron gate separated Steger from Willis, and Steger made no attempt to leave his porch.

Although Steger had earlier ignored Willis’s instruction to keep his hand out of his pocket, what he removed was a cellphone. He then used the phone to record the officers.

By the time force was used, the court concluded that a jury could find Steger was simply standing behind the gate, verbally berating the officers and recording them.

Resistance

This was the critical point.

Steger was unquestionably uncooperative.

He refused to provide identification.

He told officers to get a warrant.

He demanded they leave his property.

He cursed at Willis.

But the court distinguished verbal defiance from physical resistance.

Willis had not told Steger he was under arrest before using force. According to the court, a jury

could find that the event immediately triggering the force was simply Steger saying:

“Fuck you!”

The court described the exchange as “tedious” and Steger’s behavior as “obnoxious.”

But obnoxious behavior is not the same thing as active resistance.

The Force Was Immediate and Without Warning

The timing mattered.

Willis did not announce an arrest and then encounter physical resistance.

According to Steger’s version of events, Willis did not warn him that force would be used.

Instead, Willis immediately slammed the gate into Steger, entered the porch, took him to the ground, and allegedly punched him twice.

On those facts, the Sixth Circuit concluded a jury could find the force objectively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

Qualified Immunity

Finding a potential constitutional violation was only half of the analysis.

Steger also had to show that the constitutional right was clearly established at the time.

That means existing law must have given Willis fair notice that his conduct was unlawful in the particular situation he confronted.

Willis argued that the cases Steger relied upon involved pepper spray and therefore did not clearly establish that slamming someone to the ground and punching him was unconstitutional.

The Sixth Circuit rejected that argument. Why?

Because this was not a case requiring the court to determine whether a particular degree or type of force was clearly prohibited.

The relevant question was whether any physical force was justified under the circumstances.

The Sixth Circuit explained that its precedent had long established that a person has a

constitutional right to be free from physical force when he is not resisting efforts to apprehend him.

The court also pointed to precedent establishing the right of people posing no safety risk to be free from gratuitous violence during arrest.

Thus, the distinction between pepper spray, punches, or a takedown did not save the officer.

The clearly established principle was broader:

If the person poses no safety threat and is not actively resisting, gratuitous physical force is prohibited.

The district court therefore properly denied qualified immunity.

Street Takeaways

Verbal hostility is not automatically active resistance. A person can be rude, argumentative, profane, and uncooperative without physically resisting an officer.

Do not let disrespect become the force trigger. The court believed a jury could find that the immediate trigger for Willis’s force was Steger saying “Fuck you.” Profanity directed at an officer does not, standing alone, create a justification for physical force.

Keep the Graham factors in focus. Ask what the suspect is doing at the moment force becomes necessary: How serious is the offense? What threat exists right now? Is the person fleeing or actively resisting?

Distinguish failure to cooperate from physical resistance. Refusing identification, arguing about a warrant, recording police, and verbally challenging an officer may complicate an encounter, but those actions do not automatically authorize physical force.

Warnings matter when circumstances permit them. The court repeatedly emphasized that

Willis allegedly used force without warning and before telling Steger he was under arrest.

Body-camera footage matters—but it does not automatically resolve the case for the officer. At summary judgment, courts generally view disputed facts in the plaintiff’s favor unless video evidence clearly contradicts the plaintiff’s account. Here, the court found the video provided ample evidence from which a jury could accept Steger’s version.

Qualified immunity does not always require an identical prior case. When precedent clearly establishes that any physical force is unjustified under particular circumstances, an officer cannot necessarily obtain qualified immunity merely because prior cases involved a different force option.

Bottom Line

Steger v. Willis offers a simple but important use-of-force lesson:

Do not confuse disrespect with resistance.

Officers routinely encounter people who are angry, profane, argumentative, and difficult. Those behaviors may be frustrating, but the Fourth Amendment question remains objective.

What crime is the officer confronting?

What immediate threat exists?

Is the person attempting to flee?

Is the person actively resisting?

Here, the Sixth Circuit concluded that a jury could find Steger was doing little more than standing on his own porch, behind a gate, recording officers and verbally berating them when Willis suddenly used force.

His final words before the encounter turned physical may have been offensive.

But under the facts the court was required to accept, they were words—not resistance.

Disclaimer

This article is provided for educational and training purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Court decisions are fact-specific, and legal standards may vary by jurisdiction. Officers should consult current controlling authority, agency policy, and legal counsel when appropriate.