Court Opinion

ID: 9817024
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 03:48:39.271179+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:44.204000
License: Public Domain

[UNPUBLISHED]
PER CURIAM.
After a non-jury trial of plaintiff James Carroll’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, the District Court1 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Carroll to his home to check out his story (which turned out to be true) that the protective order against him had been rescinded.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.