8th Circuit

Affirming summary judgment in favor of trooper who collided with and killed innocent motorists; trooper’s subjective belief that he was responding to emergency triggered the intent-to-harm standard; court applies standard to all high speed driving by police although officer was not responding to an emergency call or in actual pursuit of another vehicle; court declines to determine whether emergency existed based on objective review of facts; court declines to examine facts to determine whether officer had actual opportunity to deliberate before and during high speed driving.

Holding unreasonable the seizure and retention for twelve days of plaintiff’s cell phone and camera near police station where he was photographing police vehicles and people.

Officers lacked probable cause for arrest of plaintiff for loitering and reporting a false name (John Doe) near police station where he was photographing police vehicles and people, because there was no evidence he was blocking sidewalk and he did not give false name until after arrest.

Questionable decision denying plaintiff’s claim that his arrest near police station was in retaliation for his exercise of First Amendment right to photograph police vehicles and people, on ground that plaintiff’s uncooperative response to officers’ questions plus information police had regarding stolen and vandalized cars in that area and previous murder of two officers by person with history of filming the police, would give objectively reasonable person grounds to suspect plaintiff was up to more than simply recording police.

Pulling plaintiff over for traffic stop because he gestured at officer with his middle finger would amount to First Amendment retaliation.

Use of handcuffs to restrain driver during traffic stop did not violate Fourth Amendment where driver ignored officer’s requests for license and insurance information, argued with and yelled at officer, and refused to get out of his vehicle.

Declining to recognize Bivens cause of action against city police officer, who was a deputized federal agent, who provided allegedly false information to another officer in another municipal department, leading to plaintiffs’ arrest on federal charges, in order to protect a federal witness.

On remand from Lombardo v. City of St. Louis, 141 S.Ct. 2239 (2021), it was not clearly established in 2015 that pretrial detainee had right to be free from prone restraint while resisting officers, thus officers entitled to qualified immunity.

Officer entitled to qualified immunity for shooting plaintiff in the back when he moved as though he was reaching into his waistband, where multiple witnesses had told her that suspect was armed, although plaintiff was patted down by another officer just before he fled and that officer removed nothing from him, because no previous case clearly established that a pat down that recovers nothing eliminates an officer’s objectively reasonable belief that suspect was armed and dangerous; court says whether probable cause existed was a legal issue, not a factual one.

Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity for death of jail inmate due to acute asthma exacerbation and drug withdrawal where decedent was conscious, able to communicate and told officers he did not want medical assistance, although decedent vomited, defecated on himself, and displayed “seizure-like” movement.