Two Circuits Address Scott v. Harris and Video Evidence in Assessing Qualified Immunity for Police Officers Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

In Smith v. Miami Valley Hosp., No. 24-3983 (6th Cir. Apr. 20, 2026) and Perez v. Guetschow, No. 25-1617 (7th Cir. Apr. 20, 2026), two panels decide interlocutory appeals of qualified immunity decisions under 42 U.S.C. §1983 where the central issue is video evidence, per Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007).

In each case, both involving allegations of excessive force by police, the defendant-officers took appeals of denial of qualified immunity.

In Smith, the officer (named Davis) tackled the plaintiff after a pursuit, injuring him. Defendants filed for summary judgment, citing qualified immunity. The record “include[d] a video that shows all relevant events (albeit without audio). An affidavit from Davis explaining his version of events was also attached to the summary judgment papers.”

The Plaintiff filed a Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) motion to defer summary judgment, seeking discovery on the video evidence, which the district court granted. Defendants appealed and plaintiff moved to dismiss the appeal on jurisdictional grounds.

The Sixth Circuit vacates and remands. It finds appellate jurisdiction on the ground that “[a]n inappropriate Rule 56(d) deferral is immediately appealable as an order effectively denying qualified immunity.” It then holds that the district court erred by granting deferral of summary judgment under Rule 56(d) without first deciding whether there was a genuine dispute of material fact.

“Even though the district court identified ‘some differences’ between the parties’ accounts of the interaction, it expressly disclaimed finding or intending to find any genuine dispute of material fact . . . . In particular, its order makes no mention of the video evidence. That omission is significant for our decision here because unambiguous videos can prevent a district court from finding that a genuinely disputed material fact makes summary judgment inappropriate. See Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380–81 (2007). The district court was therefore required to review the video and determine whether, in light of the video and the allegations made in the Rule 56(d) affidavit, ‘discovery [i]s actually necessary’ to decide the qualified immunity issue because there remained a genuine dispute of material fact.”

In Perez, by contrast, the panel holds that there is no appellate jurisdiction to review a denial of summary judgment, also based on video evidence.

In that case, the officer allegedly used excessive force on a sixth grader to break up a school cafeteria fight. “Closed circuit TV shows that, within a span of 44 seconds, [defendant] Guetschow took [plaintiff] J.P. to the ground, knelt at least briefly on her neck, and placed her in handcuffs.” The district court denied summary judgment, and defendant Guetschow appealed.

“Plaintiffs’ principal argument is that Guetschow applied substantial force after J.P. had stopped struggling. Guetschow concedes that this would have been improper but maintains that J.P. continued to resist his effort to bring her under control.” While appellate jurisdiction does not lie to review fact-based holdings on summary judgment, “Guetschow insists that this appeal remains all about the law, rather than the facts, because indisputable video evidence resolves all of these factual issues.”

“Video evidence that conclusively shows what happened allows a court to set aside factual disputes and decide what clearly established rules of law govern. See Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007). But cameras may be pointed in the wrong direction, miss vital details, or produce grainy images. It isn’t the existence of a video recording, but its quality, that enables a court to conclude without a trial that one side rather than another must be right about the facts.”

Viewing the evidence, “[t]he videos on which Guetschow relies do not capture all of the action and are pixelated, which obscures some details. We concur in the district judge’s conclusion that they do not conclusively show when J.P. stopped struggling or whether Guetschow kept his knee on her neck after she had surrendered.”

“Only a trial will reveal what happened—and until then it is impossible to know whether Guetschow transgressed clearly established rules of law.”