Graham v. Barnette, No. 19-2512 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
On remand from the Supreme Court in light of Caniglia v. Strom, 593 U.S. ---, 141 S. Ct. 1596 (2021), the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the officers and the City in this action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and Minnesota state law.
The court concluded that it was well established at the time that the community-caretaking exception was a standalone doctrine that could justify the officers' warrantless entry into a home. In the circumstances here, the court concluded that the officers' warrantless entry did not violate plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights under the then-extant community-caretaking jurisprudence. Therefore, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity with respect to the Fourth Amendment warrantless-entry claim.
In regard to plaintiff's claim that the officers violated her Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures when they seized her for a mental-health evaluation, the court affirmed summary judgment and concluded that probable cause of dangerousness is the standard that must be met for a warrantless mental-health seizure to be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Furthermore, assuming the officers lacked probable cause here, they may still be entitled to qualified immunity given the ambiguity in the court's case law about the requisite standard. Finally, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity because their actions did not violate clearly established law under the lower reasonable-belief standard some of the court's precedents suggested was the requisite standard.
In regard to plaintiff's claim of retaliatory arrest, the court affirmed summary judgment because no reasonable jury could conclude that retaliatory animus was a but-for cause of plaintiff's arrest. In regard to plaintiff's claim that the City's policy concerning seizures for emergency mental-health evaluation was facially unconstitutional, the district court affirmed summary judgment because the policy requires probable cause that the person is a threat to self or others. The court rejected plaintiff's inadequate-training claim and concluded that the officers were entitled either to statutory or official immunity on the state law claims.
Court Description: [Gruender, Author, with Wollman and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. For the court's prior opinion in the matter, see Graham v. Barnette, 970 F.3d 1075 (8th Cir. 2020). The Supreme Court vacated this court's judgment and remanded the matter for further consideration in light of Caniglia v. Strom, 141 S.Ct. 1596 (2021). Held: the defendant police officers were entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff's claim they violated her clearly established Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches by entering her home without a warrant because it was not clearly established at the time of the incident that their actions were unreasonable in light of the circumstances; warrantless entry was reasonable under the legal rules that were clearly established at that time; with respect to plaintiff's claim that the officers violated her Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure when they seized her for a mental health exam without probable cause to believe she was a danger to herself or others, the court again concludes that probable cause of dangerousness is the standard that must be met for a warrantless mental-health seizure to be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment; assuming that the officers lacked probable cause, they were entitled to qualified immunity because their actions did not violate clearly established law under the lower reasonable-belief standard some Eighth Circuit precedents suggested was the requisite standard at the time; with respect to plaintiff's claim of retaliatory arrest, the district court did not err in granting defendants' motion for summary judgment as no reasonable jury could conclude that retaliatory animus was a but-for cause of plaintiff's arrest; with respect to plaintiff's claim that the City's policy concerning seizures for emergency mental-health evaluation was facially unconstitutional, the district court properly granted defendants summary judgment as the policy requires probable cause that the person is a threat to self or others; nor did plaintiff show the City had inadequately trained police officers regarding the policy; finally, the officers were entitled to either statutory or official immunity on plaintiff's state law claims.
This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on August 17, 2020.
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.