987 F.3d 767
8th Cir.2021Background:
- On April 18, 2015, Courtney D. MacKintrush was arrested at a halfway house and taken to the Pulaski County Regional Detention Facility, booked for second-degree criminal mischief (a misdemeanor).
- During booking MacKintrush appeared agitated; Deputies Dustin Hodge and Franklin Snodgrass attempted to steer him toward a holding cell and Hodge placed a hand on his shoulder.
- MacKintrush shrugged off the touch (parties dispute whether the shrug contacted Hodge); Hodge then lifted and body-slammed MacKintrush to the floor, knocking him unconscious.
- Six unrestrained detainees witnessed the incident; none advanced on the officers. Multiple detention-facility employees responded within seconds.
- MacKintrush sued Hodge and Pulaski County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force (Fourth Amendment). The district court denied defendants’ summary-judgment motion based on qualified immunity; the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hodge’s use of force violated the Fourth Amendment | MacKintrush was a nonviolent, nonthreatening misdemeanant who merely shrugged away; a body slam was excessive | The takedown was a reasonable use of force to gain compliance and address a perceived security threat | Disputed material facts (degree of noncompliance and threat) preclude summary judgment; a jury could find a constitutional violation |
| Whether Hodge is entitled to qualified immunity (was the right clearly established) | Precedent put officers on notice that body-slamming an otherwise compliant, nonthreatening misdemeanant is excessive | The law was not sufficiently clear to subject Hodge to liability | The right was clearly established (Karels and related Eighth Circuit cases); qualified immunity denied |
| Whether the record (including video) eliminates factual disputes so summary judgment is appropriate | MacKintrush argues the record must be viewed in his favor and contains genuine disputes | Defendants argue video and record support their version and mandate judgment for them | Court declined to adopt a defendant-favoring factual version contradicted by the record; genuine disputes remain |
Key Cases Cited
- Parrish v. Dingman, 912 F.3d 464 (excessive-force governed by Fourth Amendment objective-reasonableness)
- Hicks v. Norwood, 640 F.3d 839 (objective-reasonableness standard applies during booking)
- Zubrod v. Hoch, 907 F.3d 568 (factors for assessing objective reasonableness)
- Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466 (objective-reasonableness test for force)
- Karels v. Storz, 906 F.3d 740 (body-slam of an ambiguously noncompliant, nonthreatening misdemeanant unconstitutional; clearly established)
- Shelton v. Stevens, 964 F.3d 747 (body-slam of nonthreatening misdemeanant unreasonable)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (court may reject a version of events blatantly contradicted by video)
- Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031 (summary-judgment standard)
- Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (view facts most favorably to nonmoving party for summary judgment)