Robert Aaron Peterson v. Officer Michael Kopp
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 10813
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- Peterson sat on four-foot bicycle lockers at a downtown St. Paul bus stop with a hookah; officer Michael Kopp (MTPD) approached after observing the group waiting and asked them to leave.
- Several people began walking away; Peterson remained seated disassembling the hookah, then took out his phone and asked Kopp for his badge number.
- Kopp grabbed Peterson, pulled him off the lockers (claiming both to get him moving and to arrest him), then pepper sprayed Peterson in the face, pushed him into the lockers, handcuffed him, and placed him in the squad car; Kopp did not tell Peterson he was under arrest until after placing him in the car.
- Kopp issued a misdemeanor trespass citation; the charge was later dismissed. Peterson alleged unlawful arrest (Fourth Amendment), excessive force (Fourth Amendment), and First Amendment retaliation (arrest and pepper-spray) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; he also asserted state-law claims.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants on federal claims based on qualified immunity and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state claims; the Eighth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated dismissal of state claims, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful arrest (Fourth Amendment) — was there probable or arguable probable cause to arrest Peterson for trespass? | Peterson: he never refused to leave; he was disassembling his hookah and said he was leaving, so no refusal to depart and thus no probable cause. | Kopp: Peterson remained seated, delayed leaving, manipulated the hookah, and used his phone; objectively reasonable to view this as refusal to depart. | Kopp had arguable probable cause; qualified immunity applies to unlawful-arrest claim. |
| Excessive force (Fourth Amendment) — was pepper-spraying Peterson objectively unreasonable and beyond de minimis injury? | Peterson: pepper spray was painful, caused days of symptoms and emotional distress, so force was unreasonable. | Kopp: use of force was reasonable in context; or, at least, any injuries were de minimis such that qualified immunity applies. | Use of force may have been unreasonable but Peterson’s documented injuries were de minimis under pre-Chambers law; Kopp entitled to qualified immunity on excessive-force claim. |
| First Amendment retaliatory arrest — was the arrest motivated by protected speech (asking for badge/criticizing officer)? | Peterson: asking for badge and criticism are protected; arrest was retaliatory. | Kopp: arrest was for trespass; arguable probable cause negates retaliatory-arrest claim. | Because Kopp had arguable probable cause, qualified immunity bars the retaliatory-arrest claim. |
| First Amendment retaliatory use of force — did Kopp pepper-spray Peterson in retaliation for protected speech? | Peterson: timing and Kopp’s responses show pepper-spray was motivated at least in part by Peterson’s protected criticism and badge request. | Kopp: pepper-spray was a response to an escalating situation; not causally linked to speech. | Court reversed summary judgment for defendants on this claim: factual disputes (temporal proximity, Kopp’s statements, differential treatment of others) allow a reasonable jury to find retaliatory motive; qualified immunity not appropriate on this claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (officer may arrest without warrant for misdemeanor committed in presence)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (objective-reasonableness standard for excessive-force claims)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified-immunity two-step analysis)
- Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (subjective motive does not invalidate arrest if objective probable cause exists)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (subjective intent irrelevant to probable-cause analysis)
- Chambers v. Pennycook, 641 F.3d 898 (8th Cir.) (excessive-force and de minimis-injury discussion)
- Bernini v. City of St. Paul, 665 F.3d 997 (8th Cir.) (arguable probable cause standard)
- Galarnyk v. Fraser, 687 F.3d 1070 (8th Cir.) (lack of probable cause as element in retaliatory-arrest claims)
- Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (First Amendment retaliation framework)
- Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (clearly established right standard for qualified immunity)