ST. LOUIS (LN) — The Eighth Circuit on Monday sided with a Sherwood, Arkansas police officer who arrested a man during a noise complaint and executed a takedown that caused the man's head to hit a decorative brick on the ground, ruling that qualified immunity barred all four of Robert Ward's constitutional claims because Officer Matt Harris had at least arguable probable cause to believe Ward was committing disorderly conduct.
Ward, who stated he had twenty-two years of law enforcement experience, was in his front yard on June 13, 2019, when Harris and Officer Jacqueline Schichtl responded to a noise complaint. The encounter deteriorated after Ward refused to give Harris his phone number, repeatedly demanded a supervisor, and called his neighbors "stupid motherf**ers" — then, after Harris warned him to stop, called them "F**heads."
Harris responded: "Come on, I already gave you the one warning. Let's go to jail." When Ward refused to put his hands behind his back and repeated "wait on your sergeant" four times, Harris executed a takedown maneuver that caused Ward's head to hit a decorative brick on the ground, resulting in a bloody head injury. Ward was transported to the hospital.
The panel, authored by Chief Judge Steven Colloton, held that Ward's aggressive movements, belligerent demeanor, and references to going "Code 3" — a law enforcement term for emergency response — gave Harris arguable probable cause to arrest for disorderly conduct under Arkansas law. The court rejected Ward's argument that the term was ambiguous, reasoning that in context, the reference to "go Code 3" suggested that Ward intended to take aggressive action that warranted an urgent response.
On Ward's First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim, the panel acknowledged the Supreme Court's narrow exception under Nieves v. Bartlett for cases where officers have probable cause but generally exercise discretion not to arrest. But the court held that Ward produced no objective evidence that officers routinely decline to arrest people who behave as he did without using profanity. The panel also expressed doubt that Ward's use of profanity in front of children, after a warning to stop, was even protected speech — though it declined to resolve that question.
The takedown itself fared no better. The panel applied the Fourth Amendment's objective reasonableness standard and concluded that because Ward said "No" when directed to put his arms behind his back and repeated "wait on your sergeant" four times, a reasonable officer could have believed a takedown was justified force against a resisting suspect.
Ward's malicious prosecution claim — tied to a public intoxication charge that was ultimately dismissed in November 2020 after Ward stayed out of trouble for a year — failed because he could not show the charge caused any independent seizure beyond the disorderly conduct arrest.
The prosecuting attorney had filed charges for disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, and public intoxication. All were passed for a year and dismissed.
Ward's wife had pleaded with him throughout the encounter — "Don't act bad. Don't act up," "Baby, you're going to go in the house if you can't act right," and "It's our anniversary. Please stop" — before Harris moved to arrest him.
The charges Ward faced were ultimately dismissed without a conviction. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for Harris on all claims.