Ziesmer v. Hagen, No. 14-2229 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseZiesmer was driving when Travis threw a cigarette out the window. It flew back in and landed on the back floor. Ziesmer pulled over to retrieve the cigarette. Trooper Hagen approached. Hagen claims and Travis denies that Travis “bent over as if” reaching for something. Hagen claims he saw a hammer. Ziesmer claims the hammer was under the seat, not visible. Hagen reported smelling marijuana. The occupants disagree. Hagen ran their names. No relevant information appeared. Hagen subsequently searched all three occupants and the car. The occupants claim that Hagen began screaming, pulled Ziesmer out of the car, and injured him. Ziesmer claims that he attempted to call 911, but Hagen “hung up my phone and threw it.” St. Paul Police have a record of the call. Hagen denied injuring Ziesmer and claimed that, searching Ziesmer, he found a small amount of marijuana. Ziesmer was cited for possession and released. Charges were later dropped. At home, he took pictures of his bruised face. Five days later, Ziesmer went had x-rays of his spine, head, and neck. Three months later he underwent an MRI and was diagnosed with “minimal disc bulging” and neck and upper-back pain. Almost three years later, he filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 suit. The Eighth Circuit reversed summary judgment in favor of Hagen, finding material issues of unreasonable seizure and that injuries like those claimed are “within the range of common experience,” so the lack of a medical expert was not fatal to Zeismer’s claim.
Court Description: Kelly, Author, with Gruender and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. The district court erred in granting the defendant police officer summary judgment based on qualified immunity on plaintiff's excessive force claim as plaintiff had adequately demonstrated that he suffered injuries to his neck and back that were more than de minimis and that the injuries were caused by the force defendant applied during the arrest; remanded for further proceedings.
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.