issue in the present case is whether Argo violated any of Wilkey’s federal rights. Wilkey alleges that Argo violated the Fourth Amendment by using excessive force when he pinned Wilkey against the hood of Officer Cranfield’s Jeep and restrained him there. Argo concedes that his actions constituted a “seizure” for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 n. 10, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989) (explaining that “[a] seizure triggering the Fourth Amendment’s protections occurs only when government actors have, by means of physical force or show of authority, ... in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen”) (internal quotation marks omitted). As a result, Wilkey’s claim is analyzed under the Fourth Amendment’s “reasonableness” standard. Id. at 395 (<HOLDING>) (emphasis omitted). “Determining whether the
holding that excessive force claims are to be treated under the fourth amendment holding that whether an officers force was reasonable must be analyzed under the reasonableness standard of 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 holding that excessive force by a school official should be analyzed under the fourth amendment holding that claims that law enforcement officials used excessive force in making an arrest are properly analyzed under the fourth amendments objective reasonableness standard