Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01829/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01829-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1829

___________

Michael Andrews, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Douglas County, * District of Nebraska.

*

Defendant, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Robert Branch, *

*

Appellee, *

*

David F. Smalheiser; Douglas County *

Sheriff; Douglas County Corrections, *

*

Defendants. *

___________

Submitted: April 4, 2006

Filed: April 5, 2006

___________

Before ARNOLD, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 05-1829 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/05/2006 Entry ID: 2029339
1

The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the

District of Nebraska. 

2

We decline to consider Andrews’s newly raised allegations and claims. See

Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914-15 (8th Cir. 2004).

-2-

Nebraska citizen Michael Andrews appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant

of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising out of his arrest by

Defendant Omaha Police Officer Robert Branch following a traffic stop. Having

conducted de novo review of the record, we affirm.2

 See Wertish v. Krueger, 433

F.3d 1062, 1064 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard of review); Littrell v. Franklin, 388 F.3d

578, 582-83 (8th Cir. 2004) (qualified-immunity analysis). 

First, the summary judgment record undisputedly shows that Branch had

probable cause for Andrews’s arrest: Branch’s request for identification from

Andrews was lawful even though Andrews was merely a passenger in the stopped car,

see United States v. Sanchez, 417 F.3d 971, 973-75 (8th Cir. 2005), and it was not

objectively unreasonable for Branch to rely on information from the crimeinformation database indicating that Andrews was the subject of outstanding arrest

warrants, cf. United States v. Rivera, 370 F.3d 730, 733 (8th Cir. 2004) (probable

cause for arrest exists if, at moment arrest is made, facts and circumstances within

officer’s knowledge and of which he had reasonably trustworthy information, were

sufficient to warrant prudent person in believing offense had been committed). To the

extent Andrews is contending that Branch lacked probable cause to cite Andrews for

obstructing administration of the law and resisting arrest, the videotape shows that

Andrews resisted Branch and his partner’s efforts to handcuff him, even after the

officers informed him of the outstanding warrants, and that he tried to leave the scene.

Likewise, the summary judgment record conclusively shows that Branch’s use

of force was not objectively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment: the entire

incident occurred quickly over a brief period, during which time Andrews was

Appellate Case: 05-1829 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/05/2006 Entry ID: 2029339
-3-

resisting the officers’ efforts to handcuff Andrews, and was attempting to leave. See

Dennen v. City of Duluth, 350 F.3d 786, 791 (8th Cir. 2003) (calculus of

reasonableness must allow for fact that police officers are often forced to make splitsecond judgments in circumstances that are uncertain and rapidly evolving); Crumley

v. City of St. Paul, 324 F.3d 1003, 1007 (8th Cir. 2003) (not every push or shove,

even if later it might seem unnecessary in peace of judge’s chambers, constitutes

Fourth Amendment violation). Further, our review of the videotape of this incident

reveals that, during the scuffle, Andrews suffered only a small abrasion next to one

eye. See Wertish, 433 F.3d at 1067 (relatively minor scrapes and bruises and

temporary aggravation of shoulder problem were de minimis injuries and supported

conclusion that officer did not use excessive force). We also reject Andrews’s

contention that the search of his person was unlawful and unnecessary. See United

States v. Mendoza, 421 F.3d 663, 668 (8th Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed (U.S.

Mar. 6, 2006) (No. 05-9637). 

Accordingly, we affirm, and we deny Andrews’s pending motions. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1829 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/05/2006 Entry ID: 2029339