968 F.3d 871
8th Cir.2020Background
- On November 19, 2015 Burnsville officers responded to 911 reports of two highly intoxicated men; Officer Smith found Brett Kohorst wandering, visibly intoxicated, with his pants undone.
- Smith asked Kohorst to sit on the squad car and keep his hands out of his pockets; Kohorst intermittently complied and at one point pulled his wallet behind his back when Smith reached for it.
- Smith attempted an escort hold, then performed an arm-bar takedown, tased Kohorst multiple times (drive-stun and barb modes) to gain compliance; Kohorst suffered a cut chin and other injuries.
- After Kohorst was placed in the squad car, he contorted his position and partially trapped his cuffs; Sergeant Stoler attempted to reapply cuffs, lifted Kohorst from the car, and dropped him to the ground; Kohorst alleges a concussion and other injuries.
- Kohorst sued Officers Smith and Stoler under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force; the district court granted qualified immunity to both officers and the Eighth Circuit majority affirmed, while Judge Kelly concurred in part and dissented in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Smith knew CAD report implicating Kohorst as a possible assault suspect | Kohorst: Smith likely did not read the whole CAD message; if not, Kohorst should be treated as a nonviolent misdemeanant | Smith: body-cam shows his laptop open and his testimony says he reviewed CAD; he reasonably treated Kohorst as potentially involved in a fight | Court: undisputed evidence (video, Smith’s statements) supports that Smith reasonably believed Kohorst might be a suspect; no genuine dispute defeats summary judgment on this point |
| Lawfulness of Smith’s arm-bar takedown | Kohorst: takedown was unnecessary and initiated by Smith against a noncompliant but not threatening, intoxicated man | Smith: Kohorst appeared noncompliant and potentially dangerous; takedown was reasonable to control and arrest while alone on scene | Court: takedown not a clearly established constitutional violation given circumstances; qualified immunity affirmed (majority); Judge Kelly dissented as to this takedown |
| Lawfulness of multiple tasings by Smith | Kohorst: repeated tasings were excessive given his intoxication and limited resistance | Smith: Kohorst kept arms under/at his side and resisted orders; tasings were intended to gain compliance and protect officers | Court: tasings were borderline but reasonable under precedent when suspect appears to resist; not a clearly established violation; qualified immunity affirmed |
| Lawfulness of Sergeant Stoler’s removal/drop from squad car | Kohorst: Stoler’s yank/throw was gratuitous and unnecessary against a subdued, handcuffed detainee causing serious injury | Stoler: Kohorst was contorted, had partially escaped cuffs, and actively twisted hands; removal was necessary to resecure cuffs and officer safety | Court: given Kohorst’s resistance in car and risk posed, Stoler’s conduct was not gratuitous; even if excessive, not clearly established that it violated the Fourth Amendment; qualified immunity affirmed (majority); Judge Kelly would deny immunity on this claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (objective-reasonableness standard for Fourth Amendment excessive-force claims)
- Ehlers v. City of Rapid City, 846 F.3d 1002 (8th Cir. 2017) (takedown and push lawful where arrestee appeared to resist)
- Jackson v. Stair, 944 F.3d 704 (8th Cir. 2019) (analysis of multiple tasings and when repeated tasings become excessive)
- Blazek v. City of Iowa City, 761 F.3d 920 (8th Cir. 2014) (gratuitous force against subdued, handcuffed detainee violates Fourth Amendment)
- Rohrbough v. Hall, 586 F.3d 582 (8th Cir. 2009) (officer who initiated physical confrontation used excessive force)
- Cravener v. Shuster, 885 F.3d 1135 (8th Cir. 2018) (taser use can be justified against passively resisting but unarmed subjects)
- Vester v. Hallock, 864 F.3d 884 (8th Cir. 2017) (arm-bar takedown not unconstitutional given noncompliance and safety concerns)
- Karels v. Storz, 906 F.3d 740 (8th Cir. 2018) (use of takedowns appropriate when arrestees are noncompliant and situation is dangerous)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (reasonableness can tolerate reasonable mistakes of fact about danger posed)