Pollreis v. Marzolf, No. 20-1745 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of qualified immunity to a police officer in a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action brought by plaintiff on behalf of her two minor sons. The claims stemmed from a gang-related stakeout in a residential neighborhood that resulted in a car chase and subsequent car crash. The officer stopped and questioned the boys at gunpoint and held them for seven minutes until backup arrived.
The court concluded that the officer is entitled to qualified immunity on the prolonged-investigative-detention claim and that the district court erred in holding that triable facts remain on whether the officer unlawfully prolonged the investigative detention of the boys. The court further concluded that the officer is entitled to qualified immunity on the de-facto-arrest-claim where, based on the totality of the circumstances, the investigative detention did not become an arrest here because the officer only used handcuffs briefly (under two minutes) when he had two indications that one of the boys may have been armed. Furthermore, the officer should receive qualified immunity on the unlawful-search claim where a frisk of one of the boys was authorized to protect officer safety and to maintain status quo during the course of the stop. Finally, the officer did not use unreasonable force when he pointed his gun at the boys while he waited for backup and before the situation was under control. Therefore, he is entitled to qualified immunity on the excessive force claim.
Court Description: [Grasz, Author, with Kelly and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. The defendant police officer did not unlawfully prolong the valid investigative stop in this case by waiting a few minutes for backup to arrive to help him determine the identity of the boys he had detained, and the district court erred in determining that the officer was not entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiffs' prolonged-investigative-detention claim; this investigative stop did not become an arrest when the officer handcuffed the boys; while the boys were mostly compliant with the officers, the older of the two boys reached into his waist area and the officer had been told the person they were looking usually carried a weapon; under the totality of the circumstances, the officers brief use of handcuffs did not make the stop an arrest, and the officer was entitled to qualified immunity on the de-facto-arrest claim; the frisk of the boy who reached to his waist was reasonable and authorized to protect the officer's safety and preserve the status quo, and the officer was entitled to qualified immunity on the unlawful-search claim; the officer did not use unreasonable force when he pointed his gun at the two boys while he waited for backup and before the situation was under control, and he was entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiffs' excessive force claim. Judge Kelly, 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.