parties have not proposed facts on this point, but in their brief, defendants refer to plaintiff as a pretrial detainee. Furthermore, a review of Wisconsin’s Circuit Court Access Program indicates that plaintiff pleaded no contest to criminal charges in Dane County Case No. 05CF865 on February 28, 2006, shortly before he notified this court of his transfer to the Dodge Correctional Institution. Circuit Court Access Program, accessed May 17, 2006, available at http://weca.wieourt s.gov/index.xsl.) If plaintiff was a pretrial detainee at the time of the August 22, 2005 incident, his excessive force claim arises under the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process guarantee, rather than the Eighth Amendment. See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 n. 10, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989) (<HOLDING>); Dorsey v. St Joseph County Jail Officials, 98
recognizing that the fourth amendment protects against the use of excessive force by police officers in carrying out an arrest holding that the due process clause protects a pretrial detainee from the use of excessive force that amounts to punishment 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 due process clause protects only those liberty interests created by the state recognizing pretrial detainees constitutional right to be from excessive force