Randall Ehlers v. Scott Dirkes
846 F.3d 1002
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- On Dec. 21, 2010, Randall Ehlers approached Rapid City officers during his son’s arrest after a disturbance at a civic center; officers ordered him to step back and leave.
- Officer Hansen told another officer (Dirkes) to “take this guy” after Ehlers failed to comply; dashcam audio/video corroborated Hansen’s instruction.
- Dirkes twice ordered Ehlers to put his hands behind his back, then executed a spin takedown; multiple officers restrained Ehlers and Trooper Rybak performed a handcuffing maneuver contested as an “arm bar.”
- Dirkes prepared and deployed a taser in drive-stun mode; whether Ehlers was actually shocked is disputed.
- Ehlers sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for unlawful arrest and excessive force against Hansen, Dirkes, and Rybak; defendants moved for qualified immunity and the district court denied summary judgment.
- The Eighth Circuit reviewed the denial de novo on interlocutory appeal and reversed, granting qualified immunity to all three officers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hansen’s warrantless arrest of Ehlers lacked probable cause for obstruction | Ehlers: his brief refusal (~20 sec) to step back could not constitute obstruction | Hansen: Ehlers’ refusal, proximity, and interference with arrest gave at least arguable probable cause | Hansen had arguable probable cause; qualified immunity granted |
| Whether Dirkes can be liable for unlawful arrest as assisting officer | Ehlers: Dirkes effectuated the arrest and must be liable | Dirkes: he acted on Hansen’s instruction and reasonably relied on arresting officer’s probable cause | Dirkes reasonably relied on Hansen’s instruction; qualified immunity for unlawful arrest |
| Whether Dirkes used excessive force (takedown and taser) | Ehlers: takedown and taser were excessive given nonviolent misdemeanor | Ehlers appeared noncompliant/resisting; Dirkes: takedown and taser were objectively reasonable to effect arrest | Use of takedown and taser was objectively reasonable under the circumstances; qualified immunity granted |
| Whether Rybak’s handcuffing maneuver (arm bar) violated clearly established law | Ehlers: arm bar was excessive and unlawful | Rybak: even if arm bar occurred, existing precedent did not clearly prohibit the maneuver in this context | Even assuming a constitutional violation, the right was not clearly established in 2010; qualified immunity granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity two-step framework)
- Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987) (clearly established-law standard)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (courts may reject plaintiff’s version when video blatantly contradicts it)
- Carpenter v. Gage, 686 F.3d 644 (8th Cir. 2012) (use of taser reasonable where officer reasonably perceived resistance)
- Small v. McCrystal, 708 F.3d 997 (8th Cir. 2013) (force least justified against nonviolent misdemeanants who do not resist)
- Kukla v. Hulm, 310 F.3d 1046 (8th Cir. 2002) (excessive-force analysis uses objective-reasonableness standard)