rights by using excessive force in carrying out his arrest. The Court addresses each claim in turn, applying the above stated two-part test governing qualified immunity. a. Substantive Claim At issue is the Fourth Amendment and its prohibition against excessive force. The Fourth Amendment protects against the use of excessive force by police officers in carrying out an arrest. Graham, v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 394-95, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 1870-71, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989); Gaudreault v. Salem, 923 F.2d 203, 205 (1st Cir.1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 956, 111 S.Ct. 2266, 114 L.Ed.2d 718 (1991). This right is unquestionably an ‘established right,’ thus the Court assumes that Officers Tremblay and Dodge were cognizant of this right. See Fernandez v. Leonard, 784 F.2d 1209, 1217 (1st Cir. 1986) (<HOLDING>). The Officers’ defense thus hinges on the
holding that in excessive force cases the threshold question for the court is whether the officers conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right recognizing pretrial detainees constitutional right to be from excessive force holding that inquiry as to whether officers are entitled to qualified immunity for use of excessive force is distinct from inquiry on the merits of the excessive force claim holding that the right to be free from the use of excessive force has been well established since 1976 holding that a police officer was not liable for use of excessive force since  951 requirements were satisfied