Second, the court determines “whether the complaint states a claim that a custom or policy of the municipality caused the violation.” Id. (citing Monell, 436 U.S. at 694, 98 S.Ct. 2018). To do so, the complaint -must “allege[] an affirmative link” between the policy and the incident “such that a municipal policy was the moving force behind the constitutional violation.” Id. (citing City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808, 823, 105 S.Ct. 2427, 85 L.Ed.2d 791 (1985); City of Ganton, Ohio v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 389, 109 S.Ct. 1197, 103 L.Ed.2d 412 (1989)). Haight’s allegations clearly satisfy the first part of the inquiry, as excessive force and false arrest constitute predicate constitutional violations. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 388, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989) (<HOLDING>). Yet the complaint falls short of the second
holding that claims that law enforcement officials used excessive force in making an arrest are properly analyzed under the fourth amendments objective reasonableness standard holding that all claims that law enforcement officers have used excessive force deadly or not  in the course of an arrest investigatory stop or other seizure of a free citizen should be analyzed under the fourth amendment and its reasonableness standard holding that whether an officers force was reasonable must be analyzed under the reasonableness standard of the fourth amendment holding that excessive force by a school official should be analyzed under the fourth amendment holding that all claims that law enforcement officers have used excessive force  deadly or not  in the course of an arrest investigatory stop or other seizure of a free citizen should be analyzed under the fourth amendment and its reasonableness standard