Robert Ward sued Officer Matt Harris under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his Fourth and First Amendment rights following an arrest during a noise complaint investigation. On June 13, 2019, officers responded to Ward's home where Ward, a former law enforcement officer, became belligerent. He questioned the officers' authority, referred to them as 'rookies,' and repeatedly used profanity in the presence of children despite a direct warning. Ward also made a statement telling the officer to 'go Code 3,' which the court interpreted as a suggestion of an urgent emergency response. When Ward refused to place his hands behind his back for handcuffing, Harris executed a takedown maneuver that caused Ward a head injury. Ward was charged with disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, and public intoxication, though the charges were eventually dismissed. The district court granted summary judgment to Harris based on qualified immunity, which the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
The Eighth Circuit analyzed Ward's claims through the lens of qualified immunity, which shields officials unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. First, regarding the Fourth Amendment seizure, the court applied the 'arguable probable cause' standard. The court found that Ward's conduct—characterized by hostility, staring down the officer, advancing toward him, and using profanity near children—supported a reasonable belief that he was engaging in tumultuous behavior or recklessly creating a risk of public alarm under Arkansas disorderly conduct statutes. The court rejected Ward's argument that the term 'Code 3' was ambiguous, noting that in context, it suggested a need for urgent emergency response. Second, on the First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim, the court applied the Supreme Court's ruling in Nieves v. Bartlett. The court held that because there was arguable probable cause for the arrest, Ward could only succeed if he presented objective evidence that officers generally exercise discretion to refrain from arresting others who engaged in similar conduct without using profanity. Ward failed to provide such evidence. Finally, regarding the excessive force claim, the court determined that a takedown maneuver was reasonable force to gain control of a suspect who was actively resisting arrest by refusing to put his hands behind his back and repeating demands to wait for a sergeant.
The decision reinforces the high bar for overcoming qualified immunity in civil rights cases involving arrests for disorderly conduct. It clarifies that officers are protected when they arrest individuals for belligerent conduct and profanity near children, even if the individual claims the speech was protected. The ruling also confirms that the Nieves exception to the probable cause requirement for retaliatory arrest claims is difficult to satisfy without objective evidence of disparate treatment. The judgment stands without remand, leaving Ward's civil rights claims dismissed as a matter of law.