Case Name: James CARROLL, Appellant, v. Eric MAYS, Individually and in official capacity as police officer for City of Warren, AR, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-05-16
Citations: 9 F. App'x 577
Docket Number: No. 00-2354
Parties: James CARROLL, Appellant, v. Eric MAYS, Individually and in official capacity as police officer for City of Warren, AR, Appellee.
Judges: Before BOWMAN, HEANEY, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 9
Pages: 577–578

Head Matter:
James CARROLL, Appellant, v. Eric MAYS, Individually and in official capacity as police officer for City of Warren, AR, Appellee.
No. 00-2354.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 16, 2001.
Decided May 16, 2001.
Before BOWMAN, HEANEY, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
[UNPUBLISHED]
PER CURIAM.
After a non-jury trial of plaintiff James Carroll's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, the District Court granted judgment to defendant Eric Mays on the ground of qualified immunity. Carroll appeals, arguing that the District Court erred as a matter of law in holding that in the circumstances of the case Mays was immune from suit.
Having reviewed the case and considered all of Carroll's arguments for reversal, we conclude the District Court did not err in granting Mays qualified immunity and dismissing Carroll's § 1983 claim. We are satisfied that Mays had an ample factual basis to believe that Carroll had threatened his former wife in violation of a protective order, and that the detention of Carroll for nearly two hours while officers investigated the status of the protective order in question was reasonably necessary to achieve the purpose of the detention. We agree with the District Court there were valid security reasons for not taking Carroll to his home to check out his story (which turned out to be true) that the protective order against him had been rescinded. Though the District Court did not discuss the case in terms of probable cause, we think the record would support the conclusion that Mays had not only reasonable suspicion but also probable cause for Carroll's detention.
In short, the record fully supports the District Court's conclusion that Mays's conduct was objectively reasonable in light of clearly established federal law and that he therefore was entitled to qualified immunity. Moreover, based on the District Court's findings of fact, none of which appears to be in dispute, we believe the court could just as well have gone straight to the merits and decided the case on the ground that Mays's conduct did not violate the Constitution. In any event, for the reasons fully explained in the District Court's memorandum opinion, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
HEANEY, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
. The Honorable Harry F. Barnes, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.