Cierra Dunn v. John Does, 116 F.4th 737

After the George Floyd protests, Des Moines police and Polk County deputies arrested 14 people on May 30–31, 2020, following civil unrest and property damage.
Plaintiffs alleged their Fourth Amendment rights were violated by unlawful arrest and unreasonable seizure of property (phones); they sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The district court issued summary judgment on several issues, resulting in complex, fractured appeals and cross-appeals by both plaintiffs and defendants, mostly regarding qualified immunity and summary judgment rulings.
Key factual disputes centered on whether probable cause or reasonable suspicion existed for the arrests, whether dispersal orders were lawfully given and heard, and whether phone seizures were justified without a warrant or clear evidence.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed some denials of qualified immunity (i.e., some officers were not shielded from suit), reversed others, affirmed certain grants of summary judgment in plaintiffs’ favor, and dismissed appeals lacking jurisdiction.
The decision included an analysis of both individual and “blanket” probable cause theories, mass arrest precedents, and the permissible scope of warrantless property seizures during civil unrest events.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Blanket probable cause/mass arrest	Presence alone is not probable cause for arrest.	Probable cause existed to arrest anyone present post-dispersal order.	No actual or arguable probable cause; qualified immunity denied for these arrests.
Unlawful arrest—individual claims	Plaintiffs were not violent, not near riots, or did not hear orders.	Officers believed involvement or followed instructions/collective knowledge.	Denials of immunity mostly affirmed where officers lacked probable cause or acted unreasonably.
Excessive force	Plaintiff was unjustifiably pepper-sprayed during arrest.	Officers acted within their discretion, using necessary force.	Appeals dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to factual disputes.
Unreasonable phone seizure	Phones seized for 2 days without specific evidence/PC.	Argued reasonable suspicion due to riot context and possible evidence.	Warrantless, lengthy phone seizures were unreasonable; immunity denial affirmed.
Malicious prosecution	Arrests/charges lacked probable cause—malice can be inferred.	Malicious prosecution is not actionable under § 1983; no showing of malice.	Actionable as a Fourth Amendment claim; denials of immunity affirmed.
Qualified immunity — Deputy Smith	No probable cause for arrest form-assisting officers.	Mere post-arrest handling did not require separate probable cause.	Reversed; Smith entitled to immunity—no precedent requiring independent verification.

Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (arrest is reasonable where officer has probable cause to believe a crime occurred)
Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85 (probable cause must be individualized, not based on mere proximity)
City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (verbal challenges to police cannot alone justify arrest)
United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (brief investigative seizure of property allowed only with reasonable suspicion and must be brief)
Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (modern cell phones merit greater Fourth Amendment protection)
Baude v. Leyshock, 23 F.4th 1065 (mass arrests require evidence of a unit acting together; individualized probable cause still needed)
Johnson v. City of Minneapolis, 901 F.3d 963 (arrest without officer observing wrongful conduct is lacking probable cause)
Thompson v. Clark, 596 U.S. 36 (malicious prosecution claim actionable under Fourth Amendment)