Thunderous Thor’s Day!!!! Sending this because: 1. PUBlished 8th Circuit decision 2. Use of pain compliance force options [alleged significant injuries] on a passively resisting protestor. 3. Municipal liability and state claims. 4. Such use of force CAN apply to almost all law enforcement officers (LEOs), as well as jail/detention officers. Locke v. Cnty. of Hubbard, No. 24-1285, --- F.4th ---, 2025 WL 2657200 (8th Cir. [D.MN] Sept. 17, 2025) [MN DCT] Locke v. Cnty. of Hubbard, No. 23-CV-0571 (WMW/LIB), Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2024 WL 229984 (D. Minn. Jan. 22, 2024), rev'd and remanded, No. 24-1285, --- F.4th ---, 2025 WL 2657200 (8th Cir. Sept. 17, 2025). According to the document, Matthew Locke sustained the following injuries: 1. Facial Paralysis (Bell's Palsy) ​ o Locke could no longer move the right side of his face "in a normal manner." ​ 2. Tinnitus o Persistent ringing or noise in the ears. ​ 3. Emotional Distress o Psychological harm resulting from the incident. ​ These injuries were allegedly caused by the officers' use of multiple pressure-point pain compliance techniques during his arrest. ​ Table of Pain-Compliance Force Techniques Allegedly Used and Alleged Injuries # Force Technique Description Alleged Injuries 1 Mandibular Angle Technique ​ Pressure applied to a pressure point behind the ear to cause incapacitating pain. ​ Excruciating pain; facial paralysis (Bell's Palsy). ​ 2 Infra Orbital Technique ​ Pressure applied to the infra orbital nerve at the base of the nose. ​ Excruciating pain; facial paralysis (Bell's Palsy). ​ 3 Hypoglossal Nerve Pressure ​ Pressure applied to the hypoglossal nerve in the neck. ​ Excruciating pain; facial paralysis (Bell's Palsy). ​ 4 Multiple Pain Compliance Techniques ​ Repeated application of the above techniques to the head and neck. ​ Facial paralysis (Bell's Palsy), tinnitus, emotional distress. ​ This table summarizes the force options used by the officers and the injuries Locke alleged as a result. VERY Brief Incident Abstract: Abstract: In Locke v. County of Hubbard et al.​, the Eighth Circuit reversed the dismissal of Matthew Locke's claims against Hubbard County, MN, and its officers, who allegedly used excessive force during his arrest at a pipeline protest. Locke, who passively resisted arrest, suffered severe injuries from pain compliance techniques applied by the officers. The court held that Locke plausibly alleged violations of his Fourth Amendment rights and that the right to be free from more than de minimis force during a nonviolent arrest was clearly established. The case was remanded for further consideration of municipal liability and state law claims. ​This decision highlights limits on police use of force and accountability for constitutional violations. ​ Learning/Training Points Based on Clearly Established Legal (CEL) Principles: 1. Use of Force Must Be Objectively Reasonable ​ Officers must apply an objective reasonableness standard when using force, considering the severity of the crime, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat, and whether the suspect is actively resisting or attempting to evade arrest. ​Source: Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396–97 (1989). ​ 2. De Minimis Force for Nonviolent Misdemeanants ​ If a person is suspected of a nonviolent misdemeanor, is not threatening anyone, and is neither fleeing nor actively resisting arrest, officers may use no more than de minimis force. ​Source: Mitchell v. Kirchmeier, 28 F.4th 888, 898 (8th Cir. ​2022). ​ 3. Passive Resistance Does Not Justify Substantial Force ​ Noncompliance or passive resistance, such as failing to release oneself from a device, does not rise to the level of active resistance and does not justify the use of substantial force. ​ Source: Tatum v. Robinson, 858 F.3d 544, 549 (8th Cir. ​ 2017). 4. Pain Compliance Techniques Must Be Proportionate Pain compliance techniques must be proportionate to the circumstances and cannot be used gratuitously to inflict pain. Source: Edrei v. Maguire, 892 F.3d 525, 542 (2d Cir. 2018). ​ 5. Consideration of Alternative Methods ​ Officers must consider the availability of alternative methods to subdue or arrest a suspect, especially in situations where the suspect poses no immediate threat. ​Source: Retz v. Seaton, 741 F.3d 913, 918 (8th Cir. ​ 2014). ​ 6. Clearly Established Right to Be Free from Excessive Force ​ It is clearly established that officers may not use more than de minimis force against peaceful protestors or nonviolent individuals who are passively resisting arrest. Source: Brown v. City of Golden Valley, 574 F.3d 491, 499 (8th Cir. 2009). ​ 7. Qualified Immunity Does Not Protect Unreasonable Actions ​ Qualified immunity does not apply when an officer's actions violate a clearly established constitutional right that a reasonable officer would have known. ​Source: Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987). ​ These principles provide a framework for assisting officers in deciding if their actions comply with constitutional standards and avoid excessive force during arrests. ​ Comparative Reference Table of CEL Passive and Active Resistance CEL Passive Resistance # CEL Principle Source (Full Citation) 1 Noncompliance and arguing do not amount to active resistance. ​ Tatum v. Robinson, 858 F.3d 544, 549 (8th Cir. ​ 2017). 2 Peaceful protestors ignoring commands or warnings are considered passively resisting. ​ Mitchell v. Kirchmeier, 28 F.4th 888, 898 (8th Cir. ​ 2022). ​ 3 Passive resistance includes failing to release oneself from a device without posing a threat. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396–97 (1989). ​ 4 Passive resistance may justify de minimis force but not substantial force. ​ Brown v. City of Golden Valley, 574 F.3d 491, 499 (8th Cir. ​ 2009). ​ CEL Active Resistance # CEL Principle Source (Full Citation) 5 Active resistance includes pulling away, fleeing, or using force to impede arrest. ​ United States v. Hollis, 447 F.3d 1053, 1055 (8th Cir. ​2006). ​ 6 Refusing to move hands for handcuffing, coupled with other acts of defiance, constitutes active resistance. ​ Rudlaff v. Gillispie, 791 F.3d 638, 641 (6th Cir. 2015). ​ 7 Continuing to lay on hands and refusing to comply with instructions may be interpreted as active resistance. ​ Carpenter v. Gage, 686 F.3d 644, 649–50 (8th Cir. 2012). ​ 8 Active resistance may justify the use of taser force or other substantial measures. ​ Kohorst v. Smith, 968 F.3d 871, 878 (8th Cir. 2020). ​ This table organizes CEL principles by resistance type and severity, providing a clear distinction between passive and active resistance and their corresponding “Clearly Established Law” (CEL) legal standards. The document does not explicitly define "passive resistance" or "active resistance." However, based on the cited legal principles and case law, the following definitions can be inferred: Passive Resistance Passive resistance refers to nonviolent, noncompliant behavior where an individual does not actively cooperate with law enforcement but does not use physical force or pose a threat. Examples include: * Ignoring commands or warnings (e.g., standing still or refusing to move). ​ * Failing to release oneself from a device (e.g., a "sleeping dragon" device). ​ * Arguing or verbally protesting without physical defiance. ​ Sources: * Tatum v. Robinson, 858 F.3d 544, 549 (8th Cir. ​2017). * Mitchell v. Kirchmeier, 28 F.4th 888, 898 (8th Cir. ​2022). ​ * Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396–97 (1989). ​ Active Resistance Active resistance involves physical actions or behaviors that impede or obstruct law enforcement efforts to arrest or control an individual. This includes: * Pulling away, fleeing, or attempting to evade arrest. ​ * Refusing to move hands for handcuffing, especially when combined with other defiant acts. ​ * Using physical force to resist or impede officers. Sources: * United States v. Hollis, 447 F.3d 1053, 1055 (8th Cir. 2006). ​ * Rudlaff v. Gillispie, 791 F.3d 638, 641 (6th Cir. ​2015). ​ * Carpenter v. Gage, 686 F.3d 644, 649–50 (8th Cir. 2012). ​ These definitions are derived from the legal context provided in the document and relevant case law. ​ Case’s Mentions of Use of TASER® Conducted Electrical Weapon (CEW) The document mentions the use of a TASER CEW in the following contexts: 1. Ehlers v. City of Rapid City ​ o The case discusses the use of a taser by an officer during an arrest. ​The officer used a taser to shock the arrestee while three other officers held the individual down. ​The court granted qualified immunity to the officer, reasoning that the officer could reasonably interpret the arrestee's behavior as resistance and respond accordingly. ​ o Source: Ehlers v. City of Rapid City, 846 F.3d 1002, 1007–08, 1011 (8th Cir. ​2017). 2. Brown v. City of Golden Valley ​ o The document references this case to highlight that a reasonable officer would have known it was unlawful to use a taser in certain circumstances. ​ The case is used to illustrate that even relatively new implements of force, like tasers, can be deemed excessive depending on the situation. ​ o Source: Brown v. City of Golden Valley, 574 F.3d 491, 498 n.5, 499 (8th Cir. ​2009). ​ 3. Kohorst v. Smith ​ o The document notes that unarmed, passively resisting subjects can sometimes justify the use of taser force, depending on the circumstances. ​ o Source: Kohorst v. Smith, 968 F.3d 871, 878 (8th Cir. 2020). ​ These are the only mentions or references to tasers or similar electrical weapons in the document. Have a terrific week!!! Mike Michael Brave (651) 248-2809 brave@laaw.com <mailto:brave@laaw.com>