the right where, before the alleged violation, Supreme Court or Eleventh Circuit precedent “has staked out a bright line” defining the right. See Hoyt v. Cooks, 672 F.3d 972, 977 (11th Cir.2012) (published opinion). Second, it establishes the right if the police officer’s conduct goes “so far beyond the hazy border between excessive and acceptable force” such that “every reasonable officer would conclude that the excessive force used was plainly unlawful.” See Lewis, 561 F.3d at 1292. A review of Eleventh Circuit case law does not show a bright line barring Officer Lozano’s conduct. To the contrary, the Eleventh Circuit has offered police officers wide discretion in reacting with force when the police officer believes that a suspect resists arrest. See, e.g., Hoyt, 672 F.3d at 977-78 (<HOLDING>); Brown v. City of Huntsville, 608 F.3d 724,
holding that there was no arrest when suspect was moved from his own truck to a police car holding that police officers had probable cause to arrest a suspect where the facts suggest a fair probability that the suspect has committed a crime holding that an officer engaged in the functional equivalent of interrogation when he asked a suspect to identify clothing found at a crime scene after the suspect was in custody and had invoked his right to silence regardless of the officers intentions holding that there was no clearly established law when suspect refused to allow officers to handcuff him and when suspect died after prolonged taser usage because precedent had not staked out a bright line holding that seizure occurred when officers prolonged and persistent questioning after the suspect had conveyed an unequivocal unwillingness to engage in further conversation with the officer