Raven Bartz, a protester, sued the City of Minneapolis and Officer Conan Hickey under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 following an incident during the 2020 Minneapolis riots. On the night of May 28, 2020, amidst a declared peacetime emergency and a citywide curfew, Bartz and a crowd of approximately 100 people gathered near the Fifth Precinct headquarters while fires burned and rioters had previously stormed the Third Precinct. After police ordered the crowd to disperse, Bartz and others remained. An officer threw a 'blast ball' to disperse the crowd, and Bartz turned to run. Officer Hickey then fired a 40mm less-lethal projectile that struck Bartz in the back of her head. Bartz alleged the force was excessive and violated her Fourth Amendment rights, while also asserting a Monell claim against the City and a state law battery claim. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, ruling that no Fourth Amendment seizure occurred or, alternatively, that the force was reasonable and the officer was entitled to qualified immunity, and declined to hear the state law claim.
The Eighth Circuit reviewed the grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Bartz but relying on video evidence that contradicted her characterization of the scene. The court assumed, without deciding, that a seizure occurred, and focused on whether the use of force was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Applying the objective reasonableness standard from Graham v. Connor, the court balanced the nature of the intrusion against the government's interests, considering the severity of the crime, the immediate threat to safety, and whether the suspect was resisting. The court emphasized the 'totality of the circumstances,' noting that the situation was not a peaceful protest but a chaotic, war-torn environment with a declared emergency, burning buildings, and a history of violence against police the night before. The court found that a reasonable officer could perceive a serious threat from a crowd defying a curfew and confronting police lines. The court distinguished Bartz's reliance on Marks v. Bauer, noting that the projectile in Marks struck a protester in the face at close range causing severe injury, whereas Bartz was struck in the back of the head while running away and suffered less severe injuries, including no concussion. The court concluded that in the tense, rapidly evolving context of controlling a riot, the use of the 40mm projectile was reasonable. Consequently, the officer was entitled to qualified immunity. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the Monell claim, as it requires an underlying constitutional violation which was absent. Finally, the court upheld the district court's decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state law battery claim, as Bartz did not argue that decision was an abuse of discretion.
The decision reinforces the Eighth Circuit's application of the 'totality of the circumstances' test in riot and curfew scenarios, allowing officers broad latitude to use less-lethal force against crowds defying orders during declared emergencies. It clarifies that the severity of injuries and the specific point of impact are critical factors in the reasonableness analysis, distinguishing cases where force is used to incapacitate versus disperse. The ruling leaves the state law battery claim unresolved in federal court, effectively requiring the plaintiff to pursue it in state court if they wish to continue the litigation.