Robin Kirkland Neal v. Daniel Ficcadenti
895 F.3d 576
| 8th Cir. | 2018Background
- Late night call reported a heavy-set Black male with a gun retrieved from a black sedan parked outside Born’s Bar in St. Paul; officers arrived and found a black sedan with three occupants (Neal, O’Bannon, Lee) who did not match the witness description.
- Officers formed a perimeter with guns drawn; O’Bannon (driver) was ordered out and handcuffed.
- Neal (front passenger) exited with hands up but wandered, dropped his hands several times, and was slow to follow commands amid loud music, barking dog, and multiple officers shouting.
- Officer Ficcadenti repeatedly ordered Neal to come with his hands up; when Neal approached and was within arm’s reach and compliant, Ficcadenti performed an abrupt arm-bar takedown, slamming Neal face-down and injuring him.
- Neal sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging excessive force; the district court denied qualified immunity to Ficcadenti, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed that denial on interlocutory appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ficcadenti's arm-bar takedown violated the Fourth Amendment | Neal: force was excessive because he was compliant and posed no threat when slammed to the ground | Ficcadenti: force was reasonable because Neal initially was noncompliant, potential gun risk existed, and rapid handcuffing was necessary | Court: when facts viewed for Neal, use of force violated Fourth Amendment because Neal was compliant and not threatening at the takedown |
| Whether Neal was actively resisting such that more force was justified | Neal: any earlier noncompliance was passive/confusion; by the takedown he was fully compliant | Ficcadenti: Neal’s wandering and dropping hands showed passive resistance justifying force | Held: initial passive resistance did not justify force once Neal complied and approached with hands up |
| Whether the legal right was clearly established in June 2012 | Neal: caselaw clearly warned that force against nonresisting, nonthreatening suspects is unlawful | Ficcadenti: argued his conduct fell within permissible force precedents for passive resistance or fluid/dangerous scenes | Held: right was clearly established—reasonable officer had fair warning that using force on a nonresisting, nonthreatening suspect was unlawful |
| Whether qualified immunity barred suit at summary judgment | Neal: disputed facts (compliance, threat) preclude immunity on summary judgment | Ficcadenti: asserted entitlement to immunity as force reasonable under circumstances | Held: district court properly denied qualified immunity; Eighth Circuit affirmed denial for fact question to resolve excessive force claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (use-of-force reasonableness standard)
- Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (clearly established law/fair warning principle)
- Montoya v. City of Flandreau, 669 F.3d 867 (force unlawful for leg-sweep against nonviolent, nonresisting suspect)
- Wertish v. Krueger, 433 F.3d 1062 (Graham factors framed for excessive-force analysis)
- Hosea v. City of St. Paul, 867 F.3d 949 (distinguishable precedent on force in fluid/dangerous encounter)
- Shannon v. Koehler, 616 F.3d 855 (right to be free from excessive force clearly established in arrest context)