a law enforcement officer to submit to a strip search. “Physical contact is ... not re quired to demonstrate the unreasonableness of the force used to effect a particular seizure.” Martin v. Board of County Commissioners of the County of Pueblo, 909 F.2d 402, 406-407 (10th Cir.1990) (citing excessive force cases “where the force is expressed by means other than physical contact,” such as the “threatened use of mace”); see also Crosby v. Paulk, 187 F.3d 1339, 1351 (11th Cir.1999) (“[EJxcessive force claims under the Fourth Amendment refer to unreasonable force or physical contact exerted by law enforcement agents in the context of arrests, investigatory stops, and seizures of people.”) (emphasis added); California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 626, 111 S.Ct. 1547, 113 L.Ed.2d 690 (1991) (<HOLDING>). Based on the foregoing, the court finds that
holding that  2241a1 requires actual use of force meaning use of such physical force as is sufficient to overcome restrain or injure a person recognizing that an arrest requires either physical force  or where physical force is absent submission to the assertion of authority holding that congress intended the phrase physical force incorporated into  922g9 to encompass crimes characterized by the application of any physical force holding that expert testimony on what constitutes deadly physical force and whether the use of force was justified should have been excluded holding iowa common law touching assault met use of physical force required for enhancement under 18 usc  922g9 be cause any physical contact by necessity requires physical force to complete