Tatum v. Robinson, No. 16-1908 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed suit against an Arkansas state police officer, alleging that the officer used excessive force by pepper spraying and choking him in the course of arresting him for taking eight pairs of shorts from a department store. The district court denied the officer qualified immunity. The Eighth Circuit held that a jury could find that the officer used an unreasonable amount of force when he pepper sprayed plaintiff. In this case, the officer used force on a non-resisting, non-fleeing individual suspected of a completed, non-violent misdemeanor. The court explained that, while some use of force was reasonable here, it was not reasonable to immediately use significant force. The district court erred in concluding that plaintiff's right not to be pepper sprayed was clearly established. The court also held that defendant unreasonably used excessive force by choking plaintiff, and plaintiff's right to be free from such force was clearly established at the time. Therefore, the district court correctly denied qualified immunity on the chocking claim. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Court Description: Benton, Author, with Loken and Beam, Circuit Judges] Civil Case - civil rights - qualified immunity. District court's denial of qualified immunity to officer who used pepper spray is reversed. Although the officer used force on a non-resisting, non-fleeing individual suspected of a completed, non-violent misdemeanor and, while some force may have been reasonable, a jury could find that the officer used an unreasonable amount of force when he pepper sprayed Tatum, the use of pepper spray on an angrily arguing individual was not clearly established at the time of this incident. The denial of qualified immunity on a claim that the officer used excessive force when he choked him for an extended period while restrained and not resisting is affirmed, as the law is clearly established that such a use of force is unreasonable. Judge Loken dissents 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.