The dispute centers on an encounter on June 30, 2022, at a Speedway gas station in St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin. Officer Patrick Mariakis observed plaintiff Benjamin Bryan driving with an expired license. When Mariakis attempted to speak with Bryan, Bryan refused to go to his car, leading to a physical struggle. Mariakis deployed his police dog, Ikar, to bite Bryan.
Bryan sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging excessive force at three points: the initial bite, the continued biting after he was subdued, and a second deployment when he tried to enter the store. The court granted summary judgment on the initial and second bites, holding that qualified immunity protects officers who use dogs against suspects who are resisting or attempting to flee.
However, the court denied summary judgment on the claim that Mariakis allowed Ikar to continue biting Bryan for more than two minutes after Bryan was on the ground. The court found genuine disputes of fact regarding whether Bryan was actively resisting or merely reacting in pain, noting that clearly established law prohibits using significant force on a subdued suspect.
Plaintiff Simon Ortega, Bryan's passenger, alleged First Amendment retaliation and an unlawful Fourth Amendment seizure. Ortega had shouted profane comments at Mariakis while watching the altercation. The court denied summary judgment on the retaliation claim, finding that Ortega's speech was protected and that a jury could infer retaliation from Mariakis rushing toward him with the dog and handcuffing him.
On the unlawful seizure claim, the court denied summary judgment on two grounds. First, the court held that Ortega's initial stop was not justified under Maryland v. Wilson because Mariakis had not actually conducted a traffic stop. Second, the court held that no reasonable officer could have believed that officer safety justified handcuffing Ortega, who had been compliant for almost eight minutes. The court also held that Ortega's protected speech precluded any finding of probable cause for disorderly conduct or obstruction.
Mariakis's motion for summary judgment was also denied on the issue of punitive damages for both plaintiffs. The court found that genuine disputes of fact remained regarding whether Mariakis acted with reckless or callous indifference to their federally protected rights.