Brian Thomas Hoyland v. Shawn McMenomy
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 16366
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- Police responded to reports of drag racing; a Corvette fled, stopped in Hoyland’s driveway, and officers began detaining the occupants.
- Christina Hoyland (passenger) complied largely but verbally protested and indicated she was disabled; officers had guns drawn and briefly focused on Brian when he opened his lit front door holding a phone to record.
- Brian stood in his doorway ~30–40 feet from officers, shouted criticisms and that his wife was handicapped, and did not physically interfere; officers ordered him inside and, ~30 seconds after he emerged, arrested him for obstruction under Minn. Stat. § 609.50; charge later dismissed by a state judge for lack of probable cause.
- Hoyland sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for unlawful seizure (Fourth Amendment) and retaliatory arrest (First Amendment); officers asserted qualified immunity; district court denied immunity on both claims.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of qualified immunity, holding (1) no arguable probable cause to arrest Hoyland for obstruction under Minnesota law, and (2) Hoyland’s vocal criticism was protected speech and a jury question remained about retaliatory motive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers had arguable probable cause to arrest Hoyland for obstruction (Fourth Amendment) | Hoyland: his conduct was verbal, non-physical, at his own doorway, and did not meet Minnesota’s obstruction standards; arrest lacked probable cause | Officers: Hoyland interfered/delayed arrests and his refusal to follow orders (and officers’ fear of ambush) supplied arguable probable cause | Held: No arguable probable cause; qualified immunity denied on Fourth Amendment claim |
| Whether officers’ actions were retaliatory for protected speech (First Amendment) | Hoyland: his criticisms and statements about his wife’s disability were protected speech; arrest would chill ordinary speaker; temporal proximity supports causation | Officers: commands and safety concerns would deter a reasonable person; arrest was for disobeying orders, not speech | Held: Speech was protected; adverse action (arrest) could chill; causal link is disputed and for jury; qualified immunity denied |
| Whether standing in doorway/refusal to go inside could be obstruction under Minnesota law | Hoyland: mere presence and verbal criticism do not constitute the physical or “fighting words” obstruction the statute requires | Officers: presence, refusal, and delay at active arrest scene posed safety risk and interfered with duties, supporting arguable probable cause | Held: Under controlling Minnesota precedent, obstruction targets physical acts or words that physically obstruct; Hoyland’s conduct did not meet that standard |
| Whether the denial of qualified immunity was reviewable on interlocutory appeal | Hoyland: appeal raises disputed factual issues so no jurisdiction | Officers: legal question exists given undisputed facts on video | Held: Appellate jurisdiction proper to decide legal question whether officers’ conduct was objectively reasonable given the facts the district court accepted |
Key Cases Cited
- Baribeau v. City of Minneapolis, 596 F.3d 465 (8th Cir.) (warrantless arrest unsupported by probable cause violates Fourth Amendment)
- City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (1987) (First Amendment protects verbal criticism of police)
- State v. Krawsky, 426 N.W.2d 875 (Minn.) (obstruction statute directed at physical acts; ordinary verbal criticism not covered)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity two-part inquiry)
- Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305 (2015) (clearly established law must be particularized; immunity protects all but plainly incompetent)
- Peterson v. Kopp, 754 F.3d 594 (8th Cir.) (elements of First Amendment retaliatory-arrest claim)