Marks v. Bauer

Summary

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit considered whether a Minneapolis police officer was entitled to qualified immunity after shooting Ethan Marks in the face with a chemical-filled projectile during protests in Minneapolis. The court held that the shooting constituted a seizure and that, viewing disputed facts in Marks’s favor, a reasonable jury could find the force objectively unreasonable. The court further concluded that it was clearly established in May 2020 that an officer could not use deadly or comparable force against an unarmed individual who no longer posed an immediate threat.

Holdings

1. A seizure occurred because Bauer purposefully applied physical force through the projectile to restrain Marks's movement, knocking him to the ground, even though Marks was not arrested or detained beyond the moment of impact.
2. The force was not objectively reasonable as a matter of law on the summary-judgment record when viewed in Marks's favor. A reasonable jury could find that Bauer shot an unarmed, falling person in the face at close range after the immediate threat to Officer Pobuda had ended.
3. Bauer was not entitled to qualified immunity because, viewing the disputed facts in Marks's favor, it was clearly established by May 28, 2020 that an officer may not use deadly force, or more than de minimis force, against an unarmed, non-threatening, non-fleeing person who no longer poses an immediate threat.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Bauer's deliberate firing of a chemical-filled projectile that struck Marks constituted a seizure under the Fourth Amendment even though Marks was not arrested.
2. Whether the use of force was objectively unreasonable under the totality of the circumstances, including the events leading up to and existing at the moment force was deployed.
3. Whether Bauer was entitled to qualified immunity because the alleged Fourth Amendment violation was not clearly established on May 28, 2020.

Disposition

affirmed