Marie v. Brett Musich and Shawn Griego
Dominic Alan Ste. Marie v. Brett Musich and Shawn Griego, individually and in their official capacities as police officers for the City of Moorhead
- John Tunheim
- 0:24-cv-01113
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 20
In Ste. Marie v. Musich, Judge Tunheim denied two Moorhead police officers' motion for summary judgment, ruling that genuine factual disputes prevent dismissal of an excessive-force claim on qualified immunity grounds.
People who allege they were subjected to excessive force by police officers during an arrest, and police officers defending such claims under qualified immunity. The ruling means officers cannot obtain dismissal at the summary judgment stage when video and other evidence create genuine factual disputes about whether force was reasonable, even when the arrested person was intoxicated and verbally non-compliant.
What happened
In Ste. Marie v. Musich and Griego, Dominic Alan Ste. Marie sued two Moorhead police officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing civil rights claims against government officials, alleging they used excessive force when arresting him in June 2018. Ste. Marie, who had been involved in a car accident and registered a blood alcohol content of .342, was tackled, subjected to knee strikes, pepper sprayed, and tased multiple times during the arrest. Two days after his release from jail, he was hospitalized with seven broken ribs, a collapsed lung, and internal bleeding, ultimately requiring emergency surgery.
The officers moved for summary judgment — a ruling that would end the case without a trial — arguing they were protected by qualified immunity, a legal doctrine shielding government officials from civil liability unless they violated a clearly established constitutional right. The court analyzed the reasonableness of the officers' force under the framework established by Graham v. Connor, weighing the severity of the crime, the threat posed by Ste. Marie, and whether he was actively resisting or fleeing. The court found that all three factors cut against the officers: driving under the influence is not an inherently violent offense, squad video showed no threatening behavior, and Ste. Marie's physical coordination was severely impaired by intoxication, making a fence escape implausible.
Judge Tunheim denied the motion for summary judgment on all uses of force — the takedown, knee strikes, taser deployments, and pepper spray — finding that genuine disputes of fact remain on whether each use of force was reasonable and whether it violated Ste. Marie's clearly established Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force. Because these factual disputes must be resolved by a jury, the case will proceed to trial.
The detailed version
- Marie v. Brett Musich and Shawn Griego · No. 0:24-cv-01113
- John Tunheim
- Mar. 16, 2026
Background
On June 18, 2018, Moorhead police responded to a car accident. Officer Brett Musich arrived first and began questioning Dominic Alan Ste. Marie, who was sitting in the grass and visibly intoxicated. Ste. Marie admitted to drinking "five to six" drinks and acknowledged he had been driving. Over roughly 20 minutes, Musich administered field sobriety tests, which Ste. Marie failed. A breathalyzer test showed a blood alcohol content of .342. Officer Shawn Griego joined Musich near the end of the sobriety testing.
After the breathalyzer, Ste. Marie placed his hands on top of a nearby picket fence. Both officers approached; Musich grabbed Ste. Marie's shoulders and ordered him to put his hands behind his back. Ste. Marie verbally objected but did not immediately comply. Musich delivered a knee strike to the back of Ste. Marie's leg, spun him, and tackled him face-first into the grass. While Ste. Marie was on the ground — eventually held down by Musich, Griego, a fellow officer, and two firefighters — Griego deployed his taser in "drive stun" mode multiple times, and Musich pepper sprayed Ste. Marie's face. Ste. Marie was handcuffed approximately 90 seconds after the takedown. Officers transported him to jail without fastening his seatbelt.
Ste. Marie was released the following day. Two days after the incident, coworkers noted he appeared extremely ill, prompting a hospital visit. He was diagnosed with seven broken ribs, a pneumothorax (air leak around a lung), and a nearly completely collapsed lung; doctors told him he was bleeding internally and might not survive without immediate emergency care. He underwent emergency surgery to repair his chest wall and plate four ribs. Defendants dispute that the officers caused these injuries, arguing the car accident was responsible.
Ste. Marie filed his complaint on April 1, 2024. Defendants moved for summary judgment on August 1, 2025, asserting qualified immunity.
Legal Standards
Summary Judgment
Summary judgment is appropriate only when no genuine dispute of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The court must view all facts and reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party — here, Ste. Marie.
Qualified Immunity
Qualified immunity protects public officials from personal civil liability unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person would have known. To overcome the defense, a plaintiff must show: (1) the evidence establishes a constitutional violation, and (2) the right was clearly established at the time. The right need not have been established by a case directly on point, but existing precedent must place the constitutional question "beyond debate."
Analysis
Takedown and Knee Strikes — Graham Factors
The court applied the three-factor balancing test from Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989), to assess objective reasonableness.
Severity of the crime
The court acknowledged that driving under the influence causing a crash is serious, but noted that in the excessive-force context, courts have held force is least justified against nonviolent misdemeanants who do not flee or actively resist. DUI does not signal violence or danger to officers, and this factor weighed against the officers.
Threat to officer or public safety
Defendants argued Ste. Marie showed aggression before and during arrest. The court found the squad camera video contradicted this — Ste. Marie expressed frustration verbally but exhibited no violent or threatening physical behavior during the nearly 20-minute interaction before force was used. He had been frisked and found unarmed. His short stature and severe intoxication further undercut any threat assessment. The court also noted that the officers far outnumbered Ste. Marie, distinguishing cases where a lone officer faced multiple or unpredictable subjects.
Active resistance or flight
It was undisputed that Ste. Marie verbally objected and did not immediately comply with handcuffing commands. But the court found strong evidence that he was not forcefully resisting or fleeing. The officers' claim that Ste. Marie might have been attempting to jump the fence was deemed implausible given his intoxication, lack of coordination, and the height of the fence. The court distinguished several Eighth Circuit cases cited by Defendants (Kohorst, Fischer, Wertish, Ehlers) because each involved lone officers, dangerous high-speed pursuits, or defendants who physically walked away from officers — none of which occurred here.
Degree of injury
Ste. Marie presented evidence of seven broken ribs, a collapsed lung, and internal bleeding requiring emergency surgery. While not dispositive, the severity of injuries is relevant to the amount and type of force used. Genuine disputes remain as to causation and extent.
The court concluded that a jury could find the takedown and knee strikes were unreasonable and excessive, and that Ste. Marie carried his burden to create a genuine issue of fact.
Officer Griego's Taser Use
Eighth Circuit precedent requires each individual deployment of taser force to be independently constitutionally reasonable. The court found genuine disputes of material fact as to whether each of Griego's taser discharges was justified. The record showed each discharge occurred without clear warning while Ste. Marie was already on the ground with his movements restricted by multiple people. Under Jackson v. Stair, 944 F.3d 704 (8th Cir. 2019), tasing without warning when a person is on the ground and not posing a threat is unreasonable. A dispute also existed at the hearing about how many times Ste. Marie was tased, which the court found independently counseled against granting qualified immunity.
Officer Musich's Pepper Spray
The court acknowledged that pepper spray is generally reasonable where a suspect is resisting or refusing lawful orders. However, because factual disputes remain about whether Ste. Marie was actually resisting at the moment he was pepper sprayed — while already on the ground and restrained by multiple officers — a jury could find the use of pepper spray unreasonable under the totality of the circumstances.
Clearly Established Right
The court rejected Defendants' argument that no clearly established right was at stake. The Eighth Circuit has repeatedly held it is clearly established that force is least justified against nonviolent misdemeanants who do not flee or actively resist and pose little or no threat. It has also stated that individuals have a clearly established right to be free from taser shock in the absence of a security threat. Taking facts in the light most favorable to Ste. Marie, these rights were sufficiently clear that a reasonable officer in Musich's or Griego's position would have understood the force used was excessive.
Disposition
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 18) is DENIED. The case will proceed.
Read the full 20-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.