Clint Small v. James McCrystal
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 3372
| 8th Cir. | 2013Background
- Deputies responded to a golf-course benefit disturbance in Oct 2008; Small was tackled and arrested, others subsequently charged; plaintiffs sued the deputies and Woodbury County under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and Iowa law; district court denied summary judgment in part; defendants appeal the denial; the court has jurisdiction to review qualified-immunity issues on collateral appeal.
- The parties offered competing versions of the disturbance: deputies claim violent confrontation; witnesses largely disputed these claims, with testimony suggesting no violence or dispersal.
- Warrant Plaintiffs allege the deputies filed false reports that caused warrants; prosecutors and magistrates issued warrants based on those reports; witnesses contradicted the deputies’ characterizations of events.
- The court evaluates qualified immunity de novo, applying the two-step framework to determine (1) constitutional rights violation, and (2) whether the rights were clearly established.
- The court analyzes four main Fourth Amendment issues: arrest without probable cause and excessive force for Small; false arrest and probable cause for Warrant Plaintiffs; and First Amendment retaliation and conspiracy claims; state-law claims are discussed with jurisdictional limitations on interlocutory review.
- The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McCrystal arrested Small without probable cause | Small | McCrystal believed probable cause existed | No probable cause; qualified immunity denied |
| Whether McCrystal used excessive force against Small | Small underwent non-de minimis injuries | Force reasonable under circumstances | Excessive force; qualified immunity denied |
| Whether deputies arrested Warrant Plaintiffs without probable cause based on false reports | False reports created probable cause | Prosecutor reliance breaks chain of causation; magistrate acted on probable cause | No; no probable cause after reconstruction; qualified immunity denied |
| Whether deputies retaliated against protected speech by inducing prosecutions | Prosecution inducement after abusive speech | No retaliation and no improper motive shown | Retaliation claim survives for §1983; qualified immunity denied |
| Whether there was a conspiratorial agreement to arrest Warrant Plaintiffs without probable cause and retaliate for speech | Evidence of meeting of the minds; similar reports disparity with witnesses | Conspiracy not proven | Conspiracy claim survives; jurisdictional scope preserved for the collateral appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Baribeau v. City of Minneapolis, 596 F.3d 465 (8th Cir. 2010) (clear Fourth Amendment standard for warrantless arrest and probable cause)
- Copeland v. Locke, 613 F.3d 875 (8th Cir. 2010) (probable cause and reasonable-mistake doctrine in arrests)
- Henderson v. Munn, 439 F.3d 497 (8th Cir. 2006) (excessive-force framework in arrests under Fourth Amendment)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (Supreme Court 1989) (objective-reasonableness test for use of force)
- Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (1986) (probable-cause deficiency in warrant applications)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (Supreme Court 1978) (false statements in affidavits can void warrants)
- Bagby v. Brondhaver, 98 F.3d 1096 (8th Cir. 1996) (false or reckless affidavits and good-faith immunity limits)
- Messerschmidt v. Millender, 132 S. Ct. 1235 (U.S. 2012) ( warrants based on false or reckless information remain scrutinized)
- Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006) (retaliatory-prosecution theories and causation)
- Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299 (1996) (limits interlocutory review of qualified immunity questions)