Brittany A. Karels v. Gabriel A. Storz
906 F.3d 740
| 8th Cir. | 2018Background
- Brittany Karels, a tenant, was arrested at her landlords’ home after loud, intoxicated arguing; officers charged her with nonviolent misdemeanors and she pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct.
- Officers Storz and Norlin responded; Karels made repeated 911 calls from the garage demanding a supervisor and said officers had assaulted her.
- Storz ordered Karels to put her hands behind her back; Karels was holding a lit cigarette and states she was trying to extinguish it in a coffee can with Norlin’s help when Storz grabbed her and body-slammed her onto concrete steps.
- Karels sustained a spiral, comminuted fracture of the left humerus requiring emergency surgery; officers recovered marijuana and paraphernalia.
- District court denied Storz summary judgment on qualified immunity for the Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim; the Eighth Circuit affirmed, finding disputed facts and that the right was clearly established.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Storz used excessive force in arrest (Fourth Amendment reasonableness) | Karels: she was nonviolent, not a threat, was extinguishing a cigarette and had no time to comply; takedown was unreasonable and caused serious injury | Storz: Karels was loud, resisting or pulling away; force was reasonable to effect arrest and overcome resistance | Denied qualified immunity: factual disputes about resistance and reasonableness preclude summary judgment |
| Whether a reasonable officer would have perceived resistance | Karels: a reasonable officer would have seen she was putting out a cigarette with Norlin’s help, not resisting | Storz: his perception that she resisted justified the takedown | Court: jury could find Storz misperceived or that Karels did not resist; issue for factfinder |
| Whether the right was clearly established at the time | Karels: precedent makes clear officers may not violently take down nonviolent, nonthreatening misdemeanants who are not resisting | Storz: precedent permits force when actions can be interpreted as resistance (Blazek/Wertish) | Court: existing precedent put the unlawfulness of such a violent takedown beyond debate for similar circumstances; right clearly established |
| Whether injury supports inference of excessive force | Karels: severe fracture supports that force was significant and unreasonable | Storz: injury alone does not establish unlawfulness if resistance justified force | Court: injury is relevant to amount/type of force; combined with disputed facts supports denial of immunity |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (establishes Fourth Amendment objective-reasonableness standard for excessive force)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified immunity framework; sequential/practical inquiry)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (must identify clearly established law for qualified immunity)
- Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305 (do not define clearly established law at high level; focus on particular conduct)
- Blazek v. City of Iowa City, 761 F.3d 920 (officer’s takedown of belligerent, noncompliant suspect; court found no clearly established violation in that context)
- Wertish v. Krueger, 433 F.3d 1062 (use of force on a noncompliant, potentially dangerous driver; explained that more force may be reasonable for passive resistance)
- Small v. McCrystal, 708 F.3d 997 (force against nonthreatening misdemeanant not justified; supports clearly established right)
- Rohrbough v. Hall, 586 F.3d 582 (precedent recognizing limits on takedowns and force against nonthreatening suspects)