Michael v. Trevena, No. 17-1946 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseThe Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to officers in a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action alleging unlawful arrest and excessive force. The court held that, accepting plaintiff's version of the events as true, the officers' use of force was objectively unreasonable. In this case, the officers suspected plaintiff of making a false statement, plaintiff was neither fleeing nor actively resisting arrest, plaintiff posed no threat to the security of the officers or the public, and the officers made the arrest by grabbing plaintiff by the throat and using a baton with sufficient force to break his arm. In regard to the unlawful arrest claim, the court also held that it was objectively unreasonable to believe that there was probable cause to arrest plaintiff where plaintiff's statement that his sister intentionally drove her car over his foot was not a false report justifying his arrest. The court remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Kelly, Author, with Gruender and Beam, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. In this action alleging unlawful arrest and excessive force by officers called to a domestic dispute, the officers' use of force was objectively unreasonable as plaintiff was suspected only of making a false statement - a nonviolent misdemeanor - and he was not fleeing, actively resisting arrest or posing a threat to officer or public safety at the time the officers grabbed him by the throat and levered him with baton, breaking his arm; accepting plaintiff's version of the domestic dispute as true, his sister intentionally drove her car over his foot, and his statement that she had done so was not a false police report justifying his arrest; it was objectively unreasonable, therefore, for the officers to believe that they had probable cause to arrest plaintiff for violating N.D. Cent. code Sec. 12.1-11-03(1); the district court erred in granting the officers' motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings. Judge Gruender, 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.