899 F.3d 544
8th Cir.2018Background
- On April 14, 2015, South Dakota State Trooper Cody Jansen arrested Troy Rokusek for DWI and brought him to a courthouse garage for a blood draw.
- Rokusek initially consented but then withdrew consent; Jansen ordered him to stand so Jansen could re-handcuff him before obtaining a warrant.
- Rokusek (5'6", 135 lbs) refused Jansen’s three commands to stand; Jansen (6'4", ≥180 lbs) pulled him up and applied a double‑chicken‑wing hold that immobilized Rokusek’s arms.
- While immobilized, Jansen suddenly threw Rokusek face‑first to the ground; Rokusek could not brace the fall and lost two teeth.
- Rokusek sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force; the district court denied Jansen qualified immunity on summary judgment, and Jansen appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jansen used objectively unreasonable/excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment | Rokusek: He was a nonviolent, nonthreatening misdemeanor arrestee; throwing him face‑first while his arms were immobilized was excessive | Jansen: He faced a refusal to comply and made a split‑second safety judgment; his perspective and necessity justify the takedown | Court: Viewing facts in plaintiff's favor, force was not objectively reasonable; excessive force established |
| Whether the constitutional right was clearly established at the time | Rokusek: Existing Eighth Circuit precedent put reasonable officers on notice that this use of force was unlawful | Jansen: Plaintiff must show closely analogous precedent; no case exactly like this one | Court: Precedent (several circuit cases) gave fair warning that throwing a nonthreatening, nonresisting misdemeanant to the ground was unlawful |
| Qualified immunity entitlement on summary judgment | Rokusek: Genuine dispute of material fact and clearly established law defeat immunity | Jansen: He is entitled to immunity because his conduct was reasonable and law was not clearly established | Court: Denied qualified immunity; appeal affirmed |
| Relevance of distinguishing cases (e.g., danger, fleeing, weapons) | Rokusek: Those differences show Jansen's conduct was unlike permitted takedowns | Jansen: Relies on cases upholding takedowns under different facts | Court: Distinguished those cases (hidden weapon, fleeing, active resistance) and found them inapposite |
Key Cases Cited
- Shannon v. Koehler, 616 F.3d 855 (8th Cir. 2010) (standard of review on qualified immunity at summary judgment)
- Gilmore v. City of Minneapolis, 837 F.3d 827 (8th Cir. 2016) (qualified immunity framework)
- Brown v. City of Golden Valley, 574 F.3d 491 (8th Cir. 2009) (objective‑reasonableness test for excessive force)
- Ashcroft v. al‑Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) (clearly established law must be defined with specificity)
- Vester v. Hallock, 864 F.3d 884 (8th Cir. 2017) (upholding takedown where officer reasonably suspected concealed weapon)
- Ehlers v. City of Rapid City, 846 F.3d 1002 (8th Cir. 2017) (use of force on actively resisting or fleeing arrestee)
- Small v. McCrystal, 708 F.3d 997 (8th Cir. 2013) (excessive force on nonthreatening arrestee)
- Montoya v. City of Flandreau, 669 F.3d 867 (8th Cir. 2012) (officer liability for excessive force during arrest)
- Rohrbough v. Hall, 586 F.3d 582 (8th Cir. 2009) (requirement that clearly established law need not be identical factually)
- Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (2002) (general constitutional rules can give fair warning of unlawfulness)