Ryan Steinhoff sued several law enforcement officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment during the execution of a search warrant for methamphetamine on a rural Wisconsin property in 2018. The SWAT team, aware that Steinhoff had a history of violent crime and might attempt to flee, approached a camper where Steinhoff was located. Upon exiting, Steinhoff was tackled by Detective Kowalczyk, and during the scuffle, the barrel of Investigator Malovrh's M16 rifle struck Steinhoff's head, causing a gash requiring stitches. The district court had granted qualified immunity to Kowalczyk and Malovrh, concluding that the force used was reasonable and that no clearly established law prohibited the actions. Steinhoff appealed, arguing that the force was excessive and that the officers were not entitled to immunity.
The Seventh Circuit applied the two-prong qualified immunity test: whether the officer violated a constitutional right and whether that right was clearly established. For Detective Kowalczyk, the court affirmed the grant of immunity. The court reasoned that executing a search warrant for narcotics in a dangerous context often requires officers to make split-second judgments to ensure officer safety and prevent flight. Even assuming Steinhoff did not flee, the court found that the circumstances—a large property, multiple suspects, and a history of violence—did not clearly establish that a takedown was unconstitutional. The court distinguished prior cases like Alicea and Miller, noting those involved compliant suspects in less dynamic situations, whereas this case involved the high-stakes environment of a drug raid. Regarding Investigator Malovrh, the court reversed the immunity grant. The court found that the body-camera footage was too dark and grainy to determine whether the rifle strike was intentional or accidental. Steinhoff testified the blow was intentional, while Malovrh claimed it was accidental. The court held that these disputed facts precluded summary judgment, as a jury could find that an intentional blow to the head with a rifle constituted deadly force against a non-resisting suspect, which would violate the Fourth Amendment.
The case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings. The specific issue of whether Investigator Malovrh intentionally struck Steinhoff with his rifle must now be decided by a jury. If the jury finds the strike was intentional, Malovrh may face liability for excessive force, as the use of deadly force against a non-resisting suspect is generally prohibited. The decision leaves open the question of whether an unintentional strike during an otherwise excessive tackle could also constitute a Fourth Amendment violation, a theory the court declined to rule on at this stage.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download