Marie v. Brett Musich and Shawn Griego

This case arises from the June 18, 2018 arrest of Dominic Alan Ste. Marie by Moorhead, Minnesota police officers Brett Musich and Shawn Griego following a drunk-driving car accident. Ste. Marie filed suit on April 1, 2024, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 — a federal statute allowing individuals to sue government officials for violations of constitutional rights — alleging the officers used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable seizures.

The factual record was substantially informed by squad car camera footage. Ste. Marie, visibly intoxicated (blood alcohol content of .342), had been cooperative enough to complete field sobriety tests over roughly 20 minutes, though verbally resistant. When Ste. Marie placed his hands on a nearby picket fence after the breathalyzer test, officers initiated physical contact. Officer Musich delivered a knee strike to the back of Ste. Marie's leg, spun him, and tackled him to the ground face-first. Once on the ground, Musich pulled Ste. Marie's arm to flip him onto his back, pepper sprayed his face, and delivered additional knee strikes to Ste. Marie's midsection or arm. Officer Griego discharged a taser at least three times in 'drive stun' mode against Ste. Marie's lower body while Ste. Marie was on the ground being restrained by up to four individuals simultaneously (Musich, Griego, Officer Werk, and a firefighter). Ste. Marie was handcuffed approximately 90 seconds after being first tackled. He was loaded into a squad car without his seatbelt fastened and, upon arrival at the station, forcefully removed from the vehicle. Two days after his release, Ste. Marie was diagnosed with seven broken ribs, a pneumothorax (air leak around the lung), a nearly fully collapsed lung, and internal bleeding requiring emergency surgery including chest tube insertion and rib plating. Defendants dispute causation, attributing the injuries to the car accident.

On August 1, 2025, Defendants moved for summary judgment (a request for the court to rule in their favor without a trial) on the ground of qualified immunity. Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability unless their conduct violated a 'clearly established' constitutional right — one that a reasonable officer would have known about. The two-part inquiry asks: (1) did the evidence, viewed most favorably to the plaintiff, show a constitutional violation; and (2) was that right clearly established at the time?

Judge Tunheim applied the three-factor balancing test from Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989), examining: (1) the severity of the crime, (2) whether the suspect posed an immediate threat, and (3) whether the suspect was actively resisting or fleeing.

On the first factor, the court found that driving under the influence, while serious, is not a crime giving officers reason to believe a suspect is violent or dangerous, and the severity-of-crime factor weighed against the officers.

On the second factor, the court found that the video evidence showed no threatening behavior by Ste. Marie during his nearly 20-minute interaction with police before force was used; he had been frisked and found unarmed; officers substantially outnumbered him; and his physical condition (short stature, severe intoxication, poor coordination) undermined any claim he posed a meaningful threat. The court distinguished this case from cases like Cook v. City of Bella Villa, 582 F.3d 840 (8th Cir. 2009), where an officer was alone and outnumbered by intoxicated individuals.

On the third factor, while acknowledging Ste. Marie verbally objected and did not immediately comply with handcuffing commands, the court found strong evidence that he was not forcefully resisting or attempting to flee — including rejecting the argument that Ste. Marie placing his hands on a picket fence was a credible attempt to escape, given his intoxication and physical state.

The court also found that each of Griego's three taser deployments presented genuine factual disputes as to reasonableness, relying on Jackson v. Stair, 944 F.3d 704 (8th Cir. 2019), which holds that each taser use must independently satisfy constitutional standards and that tasing a suspect on the ground who does not appear to pose a threat is unreasonable. Regarding Musich's pepper spray deployment, the court found similar fact disputes as to whether Ste. Marie was actually resisting at the time it was used, and whether such resistance, if any, justified the deployment.

On the 'clearly established right' prong, the court held that it has long been established in the Eighth Circuit that 'force is least justified against nonviolent misdemeanants who do not flee or actively resist arrest and pose little or no threat to the security of the officers or the public,' citing Brown v. City of Golden Valley, 574 F.3d 491 (8th Cir. 2009), and that suspects have a clearly established right to be free from taser use absent a security threat.

The court distinguished the cases relied upon by Defendants — Kohorst v. Smith, Wertish v. Krueger, Ehlers v. City of Rapid City, and Fischer v. Hoven — finding each involved materially different circumstances (e.g., officers alone or outnumbered, suspects fleeing or displaying active dangerous resistance).

Judge Tunheim denied Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment in its entirety. The case will proceed, and the questions of whether the officers' use of force was excessive and whether they caused Ste. Marie's injuries will be resolved at trial or further proceedings.