Clark v. Clark, No. 18-1324 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed suit against a police deputy, alleging that the deputy violated plaintiff's rights under the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the deputy based on qualified immunity. The court held that the initial encounter at the rest stop presented no colorable claim that plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights were violated where an objectively reasonable officer would have articulable suspicion to conduct a Terry stop; the seizure of plaintiff on the highway exit ramp did not run afoul of the Fourth Amendment and was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference; pointing a firearm at plaintiff for a few seconds while removing him from his vehicle did not constitute excessive force, and did not violate the Fourth Amendment; and, in light of the deputy's legitimate motive to investigate, plaintiff failed to draw the requisite causal connection to state a First Amendment retaliation claim.
Court Description: Erickson, Author, with Smith, Chief Judge, and Colloton, Circuit Judge] Civil case - Civil rights. Defendant police officer was entitled to qualified immunity on claim that his actions during an initial encounter with plaintiff violated plaintiff's civil rights; the encounter was consensual and involved no coercion or restraint of liberty; even if the encounter was not consensual, the defendant officer had reasonable and articulable suspicion that warranted the intrusion; a second encounter, where officers, with guns drawn, ordered defendant from his vehicle after he stopped voluntarily, the defendant officer was entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiff's seizure was supported by a reasonable and articulable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot; under the circumstances, pointing a firearm at plaintiff for a few seconds before removing him from his vehicle did not constitute excessive force and violate the Fourth Amendment; with respect to plaintiff's equal protection claim, he has not provided sufficient evidence to raise a fact question as to whether he was singled out for investigation based on his race; First Amendment retaliation claim rejected. Chief Judge Smith, concurring.
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.