430 F.Supp.3d 595
E.D. Mo.2019Background
- After former officer Jason Stockley was acquitted on Sept. 15, 2017, protests occurred in St. Louis; police declared unlawful assemblies and summoned Civil Disobedience Teams.
- Drew and Jennifer Burbridge, documentary filmmakers, were photographing/filming downtown protests on Sept. 17, 2017 and arrived at the Washington & Tucker intersection ~11:00 p.m.
- SLMPD encircled the intersection, cut off egress, ordered dispersal (multiple PA announcements earlier), and arrested >100 people; officers were under orders to arrest those who had not dispersed.
- Officers Rachas and Burton pulled Drew from the crowd; officers (including Biggins and Sgt. Rossomanno) restrained, kneeled on, struck, kicked, and twice mace-sprayed Drew; Drew lost consciousness according to plaintiffs.
- Jennifer was restrained with zip-ties, affected by nearby pepper spray, and later pressured to take a pregnancy test in jail while a male corrections officer briefly looked into the cell.
- Procedural/posture: City and four officers moved for summary judgment. Court: grants summary judgment in part and denies in part — surviving claims are Drew Burbridge’s federal excessive-force claim, Drew’s First Amendment retaliation claim insofar as it alleges force motivated by his recording, Drew’s § 1983 conspiracy claim related to that force, and Drew’s state assault-and-battery claim. All other federal and state claims against the City and officers (official-capacity claims) were dismissed; John Doe claims dismissed without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were the arrests lawful / did officers have probable cause (Fourth Amendment)? | Burbridge: arrests were unlawful because they did not hear dispersal and asked to leave. | Officers: dispersal orders were issued and officers had objectively reasonable (arguable) probable cause to arrest those present. | Held: Officers entitled to qualified immunity on unlawful seizure; at least arguable probable cause existed. |
| First Amendment retaliatory arrest/use of force | Burbridge: recording the protests was protected speech and arrests/force were motivated by retaliation. | Officers: arrests were pursuant to orders and supported by arguable probable cause; any comments were not the but-for cause of arrest. | Held: Retaliatory arrest claim fails (arguable probable cause). Retaliation claim based on use of force survives for Drew (jury could infer retaliatory motive for force). |
| Excessive force (Fourth Amendment) | Drew: was struck, kicked, maced, knee on neck, and rendered unconscious while not resisting. | Officers: force reasonable in crowd-control context; split-second decisions; they are entitled to qualified immunity. | Held: Qualified immunity denied as to Drew’s excessive-force claim (genuine dispute whether force applied while he was helpless/unconscious). Jennifer’s excessive-force claim dismissed (no evidence officers targeted her or used excessive force). |
| Municipal liability (Monell) – custom/policy/failure to train | Burbridges: city policies/customs and inadequate training permitted indiscriminate chemical use and excessive force. | City: no official policy encouraging misconduct; limited prior incidents and trainings show no deliberate indifference. | Held: City summary judgment granted on Monell claims (no evidence of pervasive custom, notice to policymakers, or deliberate indifference). |
| State-law claims (false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, assault & battery) | Plaintiffs: officers are liable for arrests, prosecution, and physical injuries. | Officers: official immunity shields discretionary acts unless done with malice/bad faith; no evidence of malice for arrests/charges; some force claims may present issues of fact. | Held: False imprisonment and malicious prosecution claims dismissed (official immunity/insufficient malice). Jennifer’s assault/battery dismissed; Drew’s state assault/battery survives (fact issues re: malice/bad faith). |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden allocation)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified immunity standard)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (objective-reasonableness test for excessive force)
- Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (municipal § 1983 liability framework)
- City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (failure-to-train deliberate indifference standard)
- Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (First Amendment retaliation framework)
- Bernini v. City of St. Paul, 665 F.3d 997 (mass-arrest Fourth Amendment analysis)
- White v. Jackson, 865 F.3d 1064 (arguable probable cause and excessive-force precedent)
- Krout v. Goemmer, 583 F.3d 557 (gratuitous force against subdued suspect is unreasonable)
- Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148 (split-second judgment and qualified immunity in force cases)