933 F.3d 1027
8th Cir.2019Background
- Trooper Engelhart stopped Bridget Murphy after observing her drive on the right lane line; dashcam recorded most but not all of the encounter.
- Engelhart asked Murphy to sit in his patrol car while he checked her license; Murphy initially complied, then left and returned to her vehicle.
- Engelhart grabbed Murphy’s arm and repeatedly ordered her to return to his car and to turn around; Murphy refused and tried to pull her arm away multiple times.
- The struggle moved out of dashcam view onto the passenger side of the patrol car on a dark highway shoulder with passing traffic.
- Murphy contends Engelhart threw or shoved her to the ground, landing on her and breaking her knee; she sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force and unlawful seizure.
- The district court denied Engelhart qualified immunity on summary judgment; the Eighth Circuit reversed, finding no violation of a clearly established right.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Engelhart used excessive force in seizing Murphy | Murphy says Engelhart threw/shoved her to ground causing a broken knee | Engelhart says takedown was reasonable given her noncompliance and physical resistance | Court assumed Murphy’s facts but found no clearly established right forbidding takedown under these facts |
| Whether Engelhart is entitled to qualified immunity | Murphy contends her right was clearly established against takedowns of nonviolent misdemeanants | Engelhart argues existing precedent allows force against uncooperative, resisting subjects | Court held qualified immunity applies because precedent did not place the question beyond debate |
| Whether precedent squarely controlled the circumstances here | Murphy points to cases prohibiting force on nonviolent, nonresisting misdemeanants | Engelhart relies on cases permitting takedowns/tasing of uncooperative or resisting suspects | Court found controlling authorities permitted officers to use takedowns in similar resistance scenarios |
| Whether factual gaps (dashcam blind spot) preclude immunity | Murphy emphasizes unseen critical moments to create disputed facts for jury | Engelhart contends undisputed context (resistance, intoxication, dark shoulder, passing cars) supports immunity | Court resolved that even crediting Murphy’s version, right was not clearly established and reversed denial of qualified immunity |
Key Cases Cited
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified immunity standard for government officials)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (plaintiff must identify controlling authority or robust consensus to defeat qualified immunity)
- Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148 (excessive-force claims are fact-specific; officers entitled to qualified immunity unless precedent squarely governs)
- Montoya v. City of Flandreau, 669 F.3d 867 (officer may not throw nonviolent, nonthreatening, nonresisting misdemeanant to ground)
- Carpenter v. Gage, 686 F.3d 644 (tasing reasonable for uncooperative, physically resisting suspect)
- Blazek v. City of Iowa City, 761 F.3d 920 (officers’ takedown and force may be reasonable when subject is belligerent and noncompliant)
- Ehlers v. City of Rapid City, 846 F.3d 1002 (spin takedown constitutionally reasonable against subject who ignored orders)
- City of Escondido v. Emmons, 139 S. Ct. 500 (Supreme Court vacated denial of qualified immunity for officer who performed a takedown after noncompliance)