Brossart v. Janke, No. 16-1412 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseThe Brossarts filed suit against Deputy Sheriff Braathen, his supervisor, Sheriff Kelly Janke, and Nelson County, asserting federal claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The charges stemmed from confrontations at the Brossart family farmstead that extended over two days. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the grant of qualified immunity to Braathen and Janke on Rodney Brossart's excessive force claim where there was no Fourth Amendment violation, and even if Braathen's repeated use of a taser was unreasonable, it did not violate clearly established law; affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs' claims that Deputy Braathen used constitutionally excessive force in tasing Rodney and Thomas Brossart; and rejected plaintiffs' claim for supervisory liability against Janke. The court also held that plaintiffs' failure to train claim against Nelson County was foreclosed by the court's conclusion that Braathen's tasing of Rodney and Thomas did not constitute excessive force; the absence of prior complaints to Nelson County of improper taser use meant there was no pattern of constitutional violations; and the state law claims were properly dismissed. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment in its entirety.
Court Description: Loken, Author, with Colloton and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. The record supported the district court's conclusion that Rodney Brossart made threats of violence against law enforcement officers, repeatedly refused to comply with officers' orders to cooperate in a potentially criminal investigation and then resisted handcuffing when he was told he was under arrest; under these circumstances, defendant Braathen's use of a taser to subdue Rodney was a reasonable use of significant non-lethal force; even if repeated use of the taser when Rodney failed to comply was unreasonable, repeated use of the taser did not violate clearly established law, and defendant Braathen was entitled to qualified immunity on Rodney's excessive force claim; with respect to Thomas Broassart's claim that Braathen's use of a taser when Brosart failed to obey an order to move over once he was arrested and detained in a squad car was excessive force, the district court did not err in finding the use of the taser was not excessive force under all of the circumstances; claim for supervisory liability against defendant Sheriff Janke rejected as his deputy did not use excessive force; County's taser plan was facially constitutional; plaintiffs' failure to train claim against the County is foreclosed by the the court's conclusion that Braathen's tasing of the Brosarts did not constitute excessive force; the district court did not err in finding plaintiffs' state law claims were time-barred. Judge Kelly, concurring part and dissenting in part.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.