## Facts

- Jon Clifford Johnson, a farmer, drove home around 2:00 a.m. towing a gravity box wagon containing soybean seed.
- Three law-enforcement officers observed Johnson’s vehicle and suspected possible grain theft and/or equipment-lighting violations.
- After an officer initiated a traffic stop, events escalated into a low-speed pursuit in which Deputy Sheriff Steven Van Hal joined.
- Under Johnson’s version (credited at summary judgment), Van Hal shot out the truck’s tires, approached with a drawn gun, pointed it at Johnson’s head, threatened to shoot if he did not comply, and handcuffed him tightly, causing injury.
- Johnson was later criminally convicted of offenses arising from the incident, including obstructing legal process and failing to carry a driver’s license.
- Johnson and his wife sued Van Hal and others, asserting a federal claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state tort claims including assault and battery.

## Issues

1. Whether the § 1983 claim against Van Hal presented a justiciable federal constitutional violation or was barred by qualified immunity.
2. Whether Johnson’s state tort claims against Van Hal were defeated as a matter of law by justification, preclusion effects of Johnson’s criminal convictions, and/or official immunity.
3. Whether the state-law assault claim based on an alleged threat to shoot at gunpoint raised a genuine issue of material fact requiring trial.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals insofar as it reinstated Johnson’s § 1983 claim and state tort claims against Van Hal.
- Summary judgment for Van Hal was affirmed on the § 1983 claim and on all state-law claims except assault.
- The case was remanded for trial solely on the state-law assault claim premised on Van Hal’s alleged gunpoint threat to shoot.

## Legal Principles

- A peace officer is entitled to summary judgment on a § 1983 damages claim where the pleadings and record fail to show a justiciable constitutional violation and/or where qualified immunity applies.
- Qualified immunity protects discretionary conduct unless it violates clearly established constitutional rights that a reasonable officer would have known under the circumstances.
- Under Minnesota official immunity, peace officers are generally immune from state tort liability for discretionary acts unless the plaintiff produces evidence permitting a finding of willful or malicious wrongdoing.
- Minnesota assault may be shown by an unlawful threat of bodily harm, coupled with apparent present ability to carry it out, creating reasonable apprehension of imminent harm.
- On summary judgment, if the plaintiff’s evidence could support a finding that an officer’s threat at gunpoint was unjustified and malicious, official immunity does not warrant dismissal and the assault claim must be tried.

## Conclusion

The court limited the case to a single triable claim: whether the deputy’s alleged act of pointing a gun at Johnson’s head and threatening to shoot constituted an unjustified, malicious assault; all other federal and state claims were dismissed on summary judgment.


Johnson v. Morris, 453 N.W.2d 31 (Minn. 1990)