Procknow v. Curry, 26 F. Supp. 3d 875

Background

Procknow, a parolee with prior convictions, stayed at a hotel under his girlfriend’s reservation but intentionally did not register his presence; Wisconsin issued a fugitive warrant after he absconded from supervision.
Eagan police, alerted to his possible presence and prior history, located Procknow in the hotel lobby on Aug. 29, 2011; he ran, Ondrey chased and deployed a Taser three times as Procknow fell and was pinned by a door.
After the Taser deployments, officers allegedly used further force: Procknow claims Curry stomped and kneed his head and Rundquist jumped on and punched him; he lost consciousness and was later photographed and handcuffed.
Officers obtained Van Krevelen’s room key, entered room 315 without a warrant, photographed items in plain view, then secured the room and later obtained a warrant; evidence from the room formed part of a federal indictment to which Procknow pled guilty but reserved his suppression challenge.
In the related criminal case, a magistrate judge (adopted by the district judge) denied suppression, finding Procknow had no reasonable expectation of privacy in room 315 (or it terminated upon arrest); Procknow appealed that denial and pled guilty to two counts.
In this civil action, defendants moved for summary judgment; the court considered collateral estoppel from the criminal suppression ruling, Fourth Amendment search merits, discrimination claims, and excessive-force/assault claims.

Issues

Issue	Procknow’s Argument	Defendants’ Argument	Held
Discrimination (§1985 and MHRA)	Conspiracy and discrimination occurred during arrest/search	No evidence of class-based animus or membership in protected class	Dismissed — no evidence of class-based animus or protected-class status
Unlawful search of room 315 (Fourth Amendment, conspiracy)	Entry and search of room 315 were warrantless and illegal	Prior criminal-court suppression ruling and facts negate a reasonable expectation of privacy; alternatively, search lawful	Dismissed — collateral estoppel bars relitigation; merits also fail (no objectively reasonable expectation of privacy; expectation terminated)
Collateral estoppel effect of criminal suppression ruling	Criminal plea undermines preclusive effect; issues not identical/necessarily decided	Suppression was actually litigated and adopted; denial was essential to plea; precludes re-litigating search legality	Preclusion applies — issue was actually litigated, decided, and necessary; alternative-ground ruling treated as preclusive
Excessive force / Assault (Taser uses; post-Taser conduct)	Third Taser deployment and subsequent beating occurred after compliance; unlawful force and battery	First two Taser deployments were reasonable given flight, risk, and belief Procknow might be armed; officers entitled to qualified/official immunity	PARTIAL denial: summary judgment granted for first and second Tasers (reasonable); denied for third Taser and alleged subsequent beating — factual disputes preclude immunity and disposition on those claims

Key Cases Cited

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1989) (objective-reasonableness standard for excessive-force claims)
Stoner v. California, 376 U.S. 483 (U.S. 1964) (hotel occupants may have legitimate expectation of privacy)
Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (U.S. 2006) (parolees have diminished Fourth Amendment rights)
United States v. Marquez, 605 F.3d 604 (8th Cir. 2010) (must show reasonable expectation of privacy to establish Fourth Amendment search violation)
Coker v. Arkansas State Police, 734 F.3d 838 (8th Cir. 2013) (use of force unreasonable where arrestee surrendered and complied)
Jean Alexander Cosmetics, Inc. v. L’Oreal USA, 458 F.3d 244 (3d Cir. 2006) (alternative independently sufficient findings may be given preclusive effect)
McKenney v. Harrison, 635 F.3d 354 (8th Cir. 2011) (Taser use reasonable to prevent flight where officer perceives risk)
Carpenter v. Gage, 686 F.3d 644 (8th Cir. 2012) (Taser use reasonable when officer reasonably interprets movement as resistance)