David Hosea v. City of St. Paul
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 15022
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- Officers responded to a 911 hang-up and, hearing a heated argument, entered the rear door of Hosea’s home without knocking or announcing.
- Inside, Steines was crying on the couch and Hosea stood about three feet away yelling; officers observed what they perceived as aggressive indicators (bladed stance, clenched fists) and Hosea did not immediately obey commands to get on the ground.
- Hosea initially did not recognize the uniformed officers and asked who they were; his son identified them as police; Hosea began to lower himself, placing a knee and a hand on the floor, when an officer forced him to the ground, fracturing his hand.
- Officers arrested Hosea (charged with obstruction; charges later dismissed) and he sued Officers Stevens and McGuire alleging unlawful arrest and excessive force under the Fourth Amendment; district court granted summary judgment to officers based on qualified immunity.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed: held officers had arguable probable cause to arrest for domestic assault based on facts known at the time, and the force used was not objectively unreasonable under Graham factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful arrest / probable cause | Hosea: officers lacked arguable probable cause because they did not know why Steines was crying and later learned she was not afraid | Officers: facts known at arrest (911 hang-up, loud argument, crying victim, Hosea standing three feet away, noncompliance) supported arguable probable cause for domestic assault | Affirmed: arguable probable cause existed at time of arrest; after-acquired exculpatory facts irrelevant |
| Excessive force / objective reasonableness | Hosea: he was not committing a crime in officers’ presence, posed no immediate threat, began complying, and officers failed to announce themselves | Officers: crime severity and perceived threat to victim, initial noncompliance could be passive resistance, officers were in uniform and Graham factors support force | Affirmed: force was objectively reasonable under Graham; concurrence would remand for trial on excessive force issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (Fourth Amendment objective-reasonableness test for use of force)
- Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (arrest valid if facts provide probable cause for any offense)
- Gilmore v. City of Minneapolis, 837 F.3d 827 (probable cause assessed at time of arrest; officers may not ignore plainly exculpatory evidence)
- Borgman v. Kedley, 646 F.3d 518 (arguable probable cause exists when an objectively reasonable mistake is made)
- Atkinson v. City of Mountain View, 709 F.3d 1201 (failure to identify can be critical where other Graham factors do not support use of force)
- Brown v. City of Golden Valley, 574 F.3d 491 (force least justified against nonviolent misdemeanants who do not resist)