Robinson v.Condley, No. 14-1962 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseEva Robinson and her son Matthew were walking their dog. Dover Deputy Payton observed "suspicious people walking." He stopped them. The dog ran away; Matthew chased it. After Matthew returned with the dog, Payton placed them inside his patrol car. Pope County Deputy Stevens and Arkansas State Trooper Condley arrived. Stevens asked Matthew to exit the patrol car. Matthew did not exit. Stevens tased Matthew. According to the Robinsons, Matthew, who is very large, was tased while struggling to get out. Condley asserts Matthew refused to exit after multiple requests. The parties disagree about whether warning was given. Condley removed Eva from the vehicle, and handcuffed her. Payton pulled Matthew from the car and stunned him, then took Matthew to the ground and stunned him again. Photos show at least 15 taser marks. Searching Matthew, the officers found cigarette lighters and an air chuck. Eva thought the officers were shooting a handgun. She urinated on herself and screamed. Wanting to cover Matthew, she broke free a. Condley grabbed her and slammed her onto the hood of the patrol car. Eva was charged with disorderly conduct, refusal to submit to arrest, and criminal mischief. Matthew was charged with refusal to submit to arrest. The Robinsons sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The district court denied Condley's motion for qualified immunity on the claim that Condley failed to intervene during the other officers' use of excessive force. The Eighth Circuit reversed. Condley's duty to intervene in these circumstances was not clearly established,
Court Description: Melloy, Author, with Loken and Murphy, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. In an action alleging defendant, a state trooper, violated plaintiff's civil rights by failing to stop another officer's use of excessive force, the district court erred in denying the trooper's motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity as the trooper's duty to intervene in the circumstances of the case was not clearly established; at the time the other officer tased plaintiff, the trooper was attempting to restrain plaintiff's mother who was trying to intervene and interfere with plaintiff's arrest, and his decision not to abandon those efforts did not violate any bright line. Judge Murphy, dissenting.
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.