## Facts

- Late one night in July 2005, Rodney Irvin was walking with his young daughter when he encountered Bob Nance, who stopped his vehicle to speak with him.
- Nance handed Irvin a business card during the brief roadside interaction.
- Sergeant Mastnardo, a Shaker Heights police canine officer, was in a cruiser nearby and believed he had observed a hand-to-hand drug transaction in a high-crime area.
- After Irvin suggested they move to a side street to continue talking, Nance drove onto the side street and Mastnardo followed.
- Mastnardo exited his cruiser and approached Irvin and Nance to stop and question them; the encounter quickly became confrontational.
- A physical struggle occurred between Mastnardo and Irvin; the parties disputed how it began, the level of resistance, and the threats (if any) Irvin posed.
- During the struggle, Mastnardo’s canine partner was released and bit Irvin; the parties disputed whether the release was intentional and whether a warning was given.
- Irvin alleged additional force, including that Mastnardo struck him in the head with a hard object and punched and kneed him; Irvin also alleged that other responding officers kicked and hit him while he was on the ground.
- Irvin was arrested and later prosecuted for assault-related offenses connected to the encounter; he was acquitted of the assault charges but entered a no-contest plea to misdemeanor child endangerment.
- Irvin sued the City, supervisors, and multiple officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Ohio law, asserting (among other claims) unreasonable seizure/unlawful arrest, excessive force, failure to provide medical care, municipal liability, and assault and battery.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether Mastnardo had reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop based on what he observed and the location.
2. Whether the stop escalated into an arrest, and if so, whether probable cause supported the arrest at the time it occurred.
3. Whether the force used—especially canine deployment and alleged strikes and kicks—was objectively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
4. Whether officers were deliberately indifferent to Irvin’s serious medical needs after the incident.
5. Whether the City and supervisory defendants could be liable under Monell for a policy/custom or failure to train or supervise.
6. Whether the individual officers were entitled to qualified immunity on the federal claims.
7. Whether Ohio-law tort claims (including assault and battery) were barred by statutory immunity or could proceed due to disputed facts about the officers’ conduct.

## Decision

- The court held the initial investigatory stop was supported by reasonable suspicion under the Fourth Amendment.
- The court denied summary judgment on parts of Irvin’s Fourth Amendment seizure and excessive-force claims where disputes about the encounter’s escalation, Irvin’s resistance, warnings, and the amount of force used required a jury to choose between competing accounts.
- The court granted summary judgment on Irvin’s federal medical-care claim, finding the evidence did not support deliberate indifference.
- The court granted summary judgment to the City and supervisory defendants on municipal/supervisory liability claims for lack of evidence tying any policy, custom, or training failure to the alleged constitutional violations.
- The court allowed certain Ohio assault-and-battery claims to proceed against officers directly involved in the disputed force, while dismissing other claims and parties where the record did not support liability or immunity applied.
- The court denied qualified immunity at summary judgment on the surviving Fourth Amendment claims because the reasonableness analysis turned on contested facts.

## Legal Principles

- An officer may conduct a brief investigatory detention when specific, articulable facts create reasonable suspicion of criminal activity; the setting (including a high-crime area) may be considered with other facts.
- A Terry stop can become an arrest if the police actions and restraints are functionally custodial; an arrest requires probable cause, and the timing of probable cause can depend on what occurred during the encounter.
- Excessive force during a stop or arrest is evaluated under the Fourth Amendment’s objective-reasonableness standard, including the severity of the suspected offense, the immediacy of any threat, and whether the person was actively resisting or attempting to flee.
- Summary judgment is improper when competing accounts of the level of resistance, the warnings given, and the force used could lead a reasonable jury to find a constitutional violation.
- A deliberate-indifference medical-care claim requires proof that officers knew of and disregarded a serious medical need; negligence or disagreement about treatment is not enough.
- Municipal liability under § 1983 requires proof that an official policy or custom (or a training deficiency reflecting deliberate indifference) was the moving cause of the injury; respondeat superior does not apply.
- Qualified immunity is unavailable at summary judgment when the existence of a constitutional violation depends on disputed facts that must be resolved by a factfinder.
- Under Ohio law, statutory immunity may not protect an officer whose conduct a jury could find malicious, in bad faith, or wanton or reckless, which can keep assault-and-battery claims alive when the force is factually contested.

## Conclusion

The court concluded Mastnardo had reasonable suspicion to initiate a stop, but it sent to a jury the disputed questions about whether the encounter became an arrest without probable cause and whether the canine deployment and other force were excessive, while dismissing Irvin’s medical-care claim and all Monell and supervisory-liability claims against the City and officials.


Irvin v. City of Shaker Heights, 809 F. Supp. 2d 719 (2011)