Ehlers v. Dirkes, No. 16-1834 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against defendants for unlawful arrest and excessive force. The district court denied summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity for Defendants Hansen, Dirkes, and Rybak. In this case, plaintiff was arrested for obstructing a police officer and resisting arrest. The court concluded that Officer Hansen had arguable probable cause to arrest plaintiff for obstructing a police officer. When plaintiff initially approached Hansen to ask about his son's arrest, Hansen ordered plaintiff to step back, but plaintiff disobeyed Hansen's unequivocal instructions to leave. Plaintiff lingered and refused to comply with Hansen's instructions. The court also concluded that Officer Dirkes is entitled to qualified immunity from plaintiff's unlawful arrest claim and excessive force claims where Dirkes did not violate a constitutional right by executing the takedown and by using the taser. Finally, the court concluded that the law was not clearly established that the use of an arm bar in this context constitutes excessive force, and thus Rybak is entitled to qualified immunity. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court’s decision denying Officer Hansen, Officer Dirkes, and Trooper Rybak qualified immunity and remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Gruender, Author, with Colloton and Beam, Circuit Judges] Civil Rights - qualified immunity. After observing officers arresting his son, Ehlers questioned officers and initially refused to back away or place his hands behind his back. Officers then wrestled Ehlers to the ground, discharged a taser, and arrested him for obstructing a police officer and resisting arrest. In Ehler's civil rights action against the officers, the officers appeal from the district court's denial of qualified immunity. Because officers had arguable probable cause to arrest Ehlers for obstructing a police officer and assisting officer could rely on the probable cause determination, officer is entitled to qualified immunity on unlawful arrest claim; officer did not violate a constitutional right by executing a takedown or using a taser. Law is not clearly established that officer's use of arm bar under circumstances constituted excessive force. Thus denial of summary judgment on basis of qualified immunity is reversed. [ January 24, 2017
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.