Brandon Pegg v. Grant Herrnberger
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 109
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- On August 4, 2013, Trooper Grant Herrnberger stopped Brandon Pegg after observing an expired vehicle inspection sticker; Pegg admitted the sticker was expired and the offense occurred in the officer’s presence.
- During the stop, a scuffle occurred when Pegg failed to interlock his hands as instructed and pulled his arm away; Herrnberger and another trooper subdued Pegg, handcuffed him, and he suffered minor abrasions treated at home.
- Pegg was arrested for assaulting/obstructing an officer and the expired-inspection violation; assault was dismissed for lack of probable cause and remaining charges later dropped.
- Pegg sued Herrnberger under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (unlawful arrest, retaliatory arrest, excessive force) and state-law battery and outrage claims; official-capacity claims were dismissed on sovereign-immunity grounds.
- The district court denied Herrnberger qualified immunity in his individual capacity; Herrnberger appealed the denial of summary judgment asserting qualified immunity.
- The Fourth Circuit reversed, holding Herrnberger entitled to qualified immunity on all federal and derivative state-law claims and remanding with instructions to enter judgment for Herrnberger.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawful arrest / probable cause for arrest based on expired inspection sticker | Pegg argued the stop/arrest was effectively for obstruction/assault and thus lacked lawful basis; §17C-16-9 is not a custodial-arrest offense | Herrnberger argued the admitted expired-inspection violation occurred in his presence and provided probable cause for arrest (Atwater controls) | Arrest was lawful; probable cause existed based on the expired-inspection violation; qualified immunity granted |
| Retaliatory arrest (First Amendment) | Pegg contended the arrest was retaliatory for asking why a passenger needed ID | Herrnberger argued probable cause for the traffic violation defeats any retaliatory-arrest claim | Probable cause defeats retaliatory-arrest claim; no First Amendment right to avoid arrest supported by probable cause; qualified immunity granted |
| Excessive force (Fourth Amendment) | Pegg claimed force used to take him down and handcuff him was excessive and officer displayed predisposition to use force | Herrnberger argued force was minimal, objectively reasonable, and used to overcome active resistance | Use of force was objectively reasonable given resistance, caused only de minimis injuries; qualified immunity granted |
| State-law battery and outrage (IIED) | Pegg argued arrest/force were unlawful/egregious enough to support battery and outrage claims | Herrnberger argued the arrest was lawful, force privileged if not excessive, and conduct was not malicious or extreme | Battery fails because arrest was lawful and force not excessive; outrage (IIED) fails because conduct not atrocious or extreme; qualified immunity (state-law standard) bars claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (Fourth Amendment does not forbid custodial arrest for minor offenses)
- Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (arrest is valid so long as objective facts provide probable cause, regardless of officer’s subjective motive)
- Reichle v. Howards, 566 U.S. 658 (no First Amendment right to be free from a retaliatory arrest supported by probable cause)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (excessive-force claims judged by objective-reasonableness standard under Fourth Amendment)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (subjective intent of officer irrelevant when objective facts justify seizure)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (clarifies inquiry whether conduct was clearly established as unlawful in the situation faced)
- Henry v. Purnell, 652 F.3d 524 (4th Cir. en banc) (qualified immunity framework for use-of-force and clearly-established-law analysis)
- Rowland v. Perry, 41 F.3d 167 (subjective motive or propensity not relevant in excessive-force analysis)