CA8: Non-lethal force during George Floyd curfew violating disturbance was reasonable

During the George Floyd riots, the day after a Minneapolis’s third police precinct was burned down, there was another protest around the fifth precinct in violation of a city-wide curfew. Plaintiff was shot in the head with a nonlethal projectile in a group of protestors. It was not unreasonable force under the circumstances. Bartz v. City of Minneapolis, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 7905 (8th Cir. Mar. 18, 2026):

… Here, although some of the protesters were protesting peacefully, the situation confronting Officer Hickey was a far cry from “a peaceful scene interrupted by rubber bullets and tear-gas.” Quraishi v. St. Charles County, 986 F.3d 831, 836 (8th Cir. 2021) (concluding an officer did not have arguable probable cause to use tear-gas based on a belief that those reporting on a protest were committing crimes).

Bartz and other protesters were defying a citywide curfew during a declared peacetime emergency while parts of the city burned and rioters caused violence and destruction. Viewing the video footage in the record of that night, the circumstances resemble a war-torn city more than a peaceful protest. See Brown, 40 F.4th at 897, 902–03 (relying on video evidence submitted by officers in support of their motion for summary judgment depicting the circumstances at issue). Just the night before, rioters overtook and burned down the police department’s Third Precinct, which Officer Hickey protected until the officers’ emergency evacuation. See Barnes, 145 S. Ct. at 1358 (explaining that “earlier facts and circumstances may bear on how a reasonable officer would have understood and responded to later ones”). As explained by the curfew announcement issued by the Governor, “[d]estructive and dangerous activity” had continued since the declaration of a peacetime emergency and the State needed to “restore peace and safety immediately.” And as the Mayor’s curfew announcement stated, “public safety personnel, residents, and visitors” were “at risk of significant injury and death and the potential for further civil unrest or disturbance” was so likely that “extraordinary measures” needed to be taken “to protect the public health, safety, and welfare.” From the perspective of a reasonable officer on the ground, this night was taking shape like the night before. The circumstances revealed the “severity of the security problem at issue” and the “threat reasonably perceived by the officer.” Kingsley, 576 U.S. at 397. And yet Bartz violated curfew and ventured into the turmoil while police sought to protect the city and the public. Even if well-intentioned, during this chaos, Bartz and the other protesters posed a threat to the officers and the public safety. Graham, 490 U.S. at 396 (explaining the test of reasonableness requires “careful attention to the … immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others”).