finding officers immune as long as they had arguable probable cause, a mistaken but objectively reasonable belief that there had been a criminal offense.
How later courts described this case
- finding officers immune as long as they had arguable probable cause, a mistaken but objectively reasonable belief that there had been a criminal offense.
- noting that “a grazing shot or piece of glass” arguably constituted a seizure
- viewing facts in light depicted by video where neither party disputed the accuracy of the video
- because officers’ seizure of plaintiff did not violate Fourth Amendment, officers were entitled to qualified immunity
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
RILEY, Chief Judge,
concurring.
I fully join the majority opinion but write separately to reiterate the court’s direction in Robbins v. Becker, 715 F.3d 691 (8th Cir.2013), and other cases, that district courts must carefully conduct “a thorough qualified immunity analysis” before denying or granting summary judgment on this issue, including “findings of fact and conclusions of law, similar by *815 analogy to [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 52(a)(2),” sufficient for our court effectively to “fulfill our function of review.” Id. at 694 & n. 2 (quotations omitted). To be thorough, the determination may not be “ ‘abbreviated’ ” or “ ‘terse’ ” and must lay out the fact findings and law “ ‘step-by-step.’ ” Jones v. McNeese, 675 F.3d 1158, 1163 (8th Cir.2012) (quoting O’Neil v. City of Iowa City, Iowa, 496 F.3d 915, 918 (8th Cir.2007)).