Gerling v. Waite, No. 20-1528 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Plaintiff filed suit against a police officer under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the officer unlawfully arrested him and used excessive force during the arrest. Plaintiff's claims stemmed from an incident where the officer issued tickets to him for illegal parking and resisting arrest. Plaintiff pleaded guilty to illegal parking by signing the ticket at the police station, and the City later dismissed the charge of resisting arrest.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of summary judgment on plaintiff's unlawful arrest claim where there is a genuine dispute of material fact about whether the officer entered plaintiff's home without a warrant to effect the arrest. In regard to plaintiff's separate Fourth Amendment claim premised on the alleged use of excessive force, the court concluded that the officer is entitled to qualified immunity because an officer could reasonably believe that plaintiff was resisting arrest. The court explained that, under the circumstances, it was not clearly established at the time that officers were forbidden to use force, including a taser, to arrest a suspect who resisted, ignored instructions, and walked away from the officer. The court noted that any damages that plaintiff suffered because of his arrest are subsumed within his unlawful arrest claim. Therefore, even without a freestanding claim for use of excessive force, plaintiff may recover any damages that he suffered from the officer's use of a taser if plaintiff succeeds on his claim alleging unlawful arrest based on an unjustified entry into the home.
Court Description: [Colloton, Author, with Wollman and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. In this Section 1983 action alleging the defendant police officer unlawfully arrested plaintiff and used excessive force during the arrest, the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity on the unlawful arrest claim as there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the office entered plaintiff's home without a warrant to effect the arrest; with respect to the separate Fourth Amendment claim premised on the alleged use of excessive force, the officer was entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity as an officer could reasonably believe plaintiff was resisting arrest; the use of a taser to affect the arrest did not violated a clearly established right as it was not clearly established on the date of the arrest that officers were forbidden to use force, including a taser, to arrest a subject who resisted, ignored instructions, and walked away from the officer.
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.