986 F.3d 831
8th Cir.2021Background
- Three Al Jazeera reporters (Quraishi, Cichowski, Winslade) were preparing a live broadcast near Ferguson protests when St. Charles County SWAT, including Deputy Michael Anderson, deployed a single CS (tear‑gas) canister that landed in front of them.
- Multiple videos show a generally calm scene at the reporters’ location; the videos do not show dispersal orders, projectiles coming from the reporters’ area, or orders to turn off lights before the canister was deployed.
- Anderson contends he was ordered to deploy the gas, believed projectiles were coming from the bright‑light area, and thought the reporters had refused dispersal/lighting orders.
- Reporters sued Anderson and St. Charles County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting First Amendment retaliation, Fourth Amendment, and state‑law battery claims; the district court denied qualified immunity on the federal claims and denied official immunity on the state claim.
- On interlocutory appeal, the Eighth Circuit reviews legal issues de novo, viewing disputed facts in the reporters’ favor where appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Qualified immunity on First Amendment retaliation | Reporters were engaged in protected newsgathering, were singled out and tear‑gassed, and the conduct would chill reporting | Anderson contends reporters violated dispersal orders, ignored lighting orders, and posed safety risk (so actions were lawful) | Denied qualified immunity; court affirmed district court — First Amendment clearly established and factual disputes preclude immunity |
| Arguable probable cause for use of force / criminal conduct | No dispersal orders, no projectiles, so no arguable probable cause to treat reporters as criminals | Anderson claims he perceived orders, observed projectiles, and followed sergeant’s order, so any mistake was reasonable | Court rejects arguable probable cause where factual disputes resolved for reporters; immunity not available on First Amendment claim |
| Fourth Amendment: was tear‑gassing a seizure and clearly established? | Reporters say tear‑gassing restrained their liberty and was an unreasonable seizure | Anderson says one canister was not a seizure and law did not clearly establish chemical dispersal as seizure | Reversed denial of immunity on Fourth Amendment; deploying one canister was not clearly established as a seizure, so qualified immunity granted |
| State‑law battery / official immunity (Missouri) | Anderson used excessive/unnecessary force and acted with bad faith or wrongful motive | Anderson says force was reasonable and he is entitled to official immunity | Denied official immunity; factual disputes permit inference of conscious wrongdoing so summary judgment improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (defines interlocutory appellate review of qualified immunity)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (establishes modern qualified immunity standard)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (permits courts to choose order of qualified immunity prongs)
- Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (clarifies "clearly established" standard)
- District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577 (requires precedent or robust consensus to clearly establish Fourth Amendment violations)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (courts may rely on video evidence that blatantly contradicts a party’s account)
- Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (recognizes newsgathering and press protections)
- Baribeau v. City of Minneapolis, 596 F.3d 465 (First Amendment retaliation framework)
- Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (passengers are seized during a traffic stop)
- Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593 (seizure where police action terminates or restricts movement)