Rodney Brossart v. Kelly Janke
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10675, 859 F.3d 616, 2017 WL 2602644 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The use of a taser is a reasonable application of force under the Fourth Amendment when an officer is confronted with a defiant, non-compliant, and potentially dangerous individual who is actively resisting arrest. Force, including tasing, may also be reasonably used against a handcuffed and detained individual who refuses to comply with lawful commands during a tense and rapidly evolving situation.
Facts:
- Rodney Brossart found six of his neighbor's cattle on his property and secured them without notifying the sheriff as required by state law.
- When the cattle's owner, Chris Anderson, arrived, Rodney Brossart refused to release the cattle.
- Deputy Braathen and Brand Inspector Frederickson went to the Brossart farm to investigate and were met with defiance by Rodney, who threatened them by stating they would not be 'walking away' if they set foot on his property.
- After Braathen informed Rodney he was under arrest, Rodney resisted and yelled to his son, Jacob, to 'get it,' pointing towards a pickup truck which contained firearms.
- The following evening, Rodney's sons, including Thomas Brossart, confronted Deputy Braathen and Sheriff Janke with rifles, leading to an armed standoff.
- The next morning, after a SWAT team arrested the Brossart sons, Thomas was handcuffed and placed in a patrol car.
- While in the back of the car, Thomas was ordered to move over to make room for his brothers but only moved a few inches and remained verbally defiant.
Procedural Posture:
- The Brossarts sued Deputy Braathen, Sheriff Janke, and Nelson County in the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota, a federal trial court.
- The district court dismissed the Brossarts' state law claims as barred by the statute of limitations.
- After the plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, the defendants moved for summary judgment on the remaining federal claims.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants, concluding that Deputy Braathen was entitled to qualified immunity and that there was no basis for supervisory or municipal liability.
- The Brossarts (appellants) appealed the district court's orders to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a deputy's use of a taser, first in multiple applications on an individual actively resisting arrest, and second, on another individual who is handcuffed in a patrol car but refusing to comply with commands, violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on excessive force?
Opinions:
Majority - Loken, Circuit Judge.
No, the deputy's use of a taser in both instances was reasonable under the circumstances and did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The court reasoned that Rodney Brossart was volatile, dangerous, and actively resisting arrest after making threats, which justified the initial and subsequent tasings as he continued to be non-compliant. Regarding Thomas Brossart, the court considered the totality of the circumstances, including the armed standoff the previous day, his resistance in getting to the car, and his refusal to obey a lawful command once inside. Given the tense situation, the single use of the taser in drive-stun mode was a reasonable and de minimis application of force to gain compliance.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Kelly, Circuit Judge.
Yes, as to Thomas Brossart, the deputy's use of a taser constituted excessive force that violated the Fourth Amendment. The dissent argues that at the moment Thomas was tased, he was handcuffed, secured in a police car, and posed no immediate threat to officer safety. His minimal movement in response to a vague command to 'move over' did not constitute active resistance justifying the use of a taser. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Thomas, a reasonable jury could find the force was excessive because he was already restrained and not a threat.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high deference courts give to law enforcement officers' use of force in tense and evolving situations under the 'totality of the circumstances' analysis. It solidifies the principle that active resistance and non-compliance, even when verbal or passive, can justify the use of a taser. The ruling makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to succeed on excessive force claims involving tasers unless the subject is compliant and non-threatening, thereby strengthening the qualified immunity defense for officers in similar scenarios.
