Police directed gun at plaintiff for 7-10 seconds. Is there a case?

This case arises from a traffic stop on the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway. The police officer was patrolling the BQE on foot and ordered plaintiff to pull over after witnessing an illegal lane change. The officer drew his gun and pointed it at plaintiff for 7 to 10 seconds before letting plaintiff go with a warning. Plaintiff sues the officer, who asserts a qualified immunity defense. The Court of Appeals grants immunity.

The case is Cerisier v. City of New York, a summary order issued on July 19. Qualified immunity allows police officers to avoid suit if their actions did not violate clearly-established law, as defined by Second Circuit and Supreme Court authority. This allows officers to perform their work without fear of any lawsuits unless they are on notice that similar facts have been held to violate the Constitution in a prior case.

This Section 1983 claim asserts that the officer violated the Constitution when he pointed his gun at plaintiff, who claims there was no good reason to do this. He argues that qualified immunity cannot attach because cases hold that the use of "significant force . . . without justification," such as pointing a loaded gun at a non-threatening and non-resisting individual, violates the Fourth Amendment. 

The Court of Appeals holds that plaintiff is defining the "clearly-established right" inquiry too broadly. The Supreme Court wants the question framed more narrowly, the Court of Appeals notes, as the question must reference the specific context of the case. That is how qualified immunity works, and why so many cases get the kabosh on this basis.

Looking at the case from a narrower angle, the real question is whether cases hold that the Fourth Amendment prohibits drawing a gun for a few seconds in the context of a traffic stop when the officer is on foot and the driver is behind the wheel. No cases hold as such. What makes this case different from other drawn-gun cases is that the traffic stop is more fraught with danger than other police stops.While some cases hold the police liable when the conduct involved physical force by the police officer or the officer brandished the gun for an extended period of time (such as two minutes), that is not this case, and the defendant officer was not on notice that he was violating the Fourth Amendment.