Bernini, et al. v. City of St. Paul, et al., No. 10-3552 (8th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseThis civil action arose out of events that occurred on the first day of the 2008 Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minnesota. 32 people filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against six police officers and the City of St. Paul, alleging violations of their rights under the First and Fourth Amendments. Plaintiffs subsequently appealed the dismissal of their claims against five officers and the City. The court affirmed the district court's conclusion that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity for the seizures; the record did not show that any defendant directly used force against any plaintiff; and Sergeant Axel Henry was entitled to qualified immunity. The court also held that the district court correctly granted summary judgment for the officers on plaintiffs' claims that the officers arrested them in retaliation for exercising their First Amendment rights. The court further held that the district court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of the City where a Senior Commander's actions were not sufficient to impose liability on the City.
Court Description: Civil case - Civil rights. In this Section 1983 action brought by persons detained or arrested during a protest at the 2008 Republican Convention in St. Paul, Minnesota, the district court did not err in finding that the officers in the case reasonably could have concluded that the group at the intersection of Shepard and Jackson had committed a crime and was acting as a unit to attempt to break police lines, thereby committing several state law offenses, including third degree riot and unlawful assembly; as a result, the police did not violate the clearly established rights of 16 plaintiffs who were present at the intersection and who were arrested in a nearby park; nor did the police violate the rights of 7 persons who were briefly detained at the park and then released as the detention was necessary to determine whether they were members of the group from the intersection; it was reasonable for officers to believe they could arrest another group of 9 plaintiffs who were acting as a unit with the protestors in their efforts to break police lines; record does not show that any of the defendants directly used force against any of the plaintiffs and plaintiffs' unlawful force claim fails; plaintiffs failed to make a submissible First Amendment retaliation claim as the officers could reasonably conclude that plaintiffs had violated Minnesota law and were engaged in non-protected speech; none of the defendants' actions were sufficient to impose Section 1983 liability on the City.
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.