Kohorst v. Smith, No. 19-1955 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Plaintiff filed suit against two police officers, alleging claims of excessive force under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiff's claims arose from the officers' response from a caller regarding two highly intoxicated individuals walking around a residential neighborhood knocking on doors.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Officer Smith based on qualified immunity, holding that the undisputed evidence in the record established that it was reasonable for Officer Smith to approach plaintiff as a potential suspect in an assault investigation who posed a threat to officer safety; Officer Smith's arm-bar takedown and later push into the ground did not rise to the level of unreasonable uses of force; and Officer Smith's use of the taser did not violate a clearly established right where a reasonable officer in Smith's position could have perceived plaintiff to be resisting arrest and could have feared for his safety. The court also affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Sergeant Stoler based on qualified immunity, holding that Sergeant Stoler's movement of plaintiff from the back of the squad car after plaintiff was tangled up in his handcuffs, an at least passively resisting suspect, was not gratuitous or unnecessarily violent.
Court Description: [Erickson, Author, with Kelly and Stras, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. Based on the circumstances confronting Officer Smith when he arrived at the scene, the arm-bar takedown and the pushing down of plaintiff, who at a minimum appeared to be resisting and was not complying with commands, did not rise to the level of force required to constitute a constitutional violation; with respect to the repeated tasings of plaintiff, Officer Smith's actions, while a close call, did not violate a clearly established right and the district court did not err in granting the officer qualified immunity; defendant Officer Stoler's actions in removing plaintiff from the car after he got tangled up in his handcuffs, was not gratuitous or unnecessarily violent and he was entitled to qualified immunity. Judge Kelly, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
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.