Do the facts alleged show a violation of a constitutional right?
The analysis of whether the plaintiff has shown that the officers’ conduct violated a constitutional right begins with identifying the right in question. See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 (1989). That is an important inquiry in this case, especially since the district court found, and the plaintiff concedes, that Officers Wood and Johnson acted lawfully at the outset when they placed cuffs on Mr. Hildebrandt. See Appellee’s Br. at 27 (“[P]robable cause for the detainment of Fred Hildebrandt is not in dispute, a fact well noted by the [district] Court in its Opinion.”). Accordingly, we proceed along the custodial continuum “and then determine what constitutional protection controls at which particular juncture.” Austin v. Hamilton, 945 F.2d 1155, 1158 (10th Cir. 1991) (overruled on other grounds, Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (1995)). The pivotal point identified by the district court is when, after waiting about forty-five minutes, the officers terminated their involvement, leav
