Eighth Circuit
Brandy v. City of St. Louis, 75 F.4th 908, 914 (8th Cir. 2023) (“Because an officer in Officer Olsten’s position would have been on notice that he could not use his pepper spray as a means to retaliate against a citizen for his or her protected expression, we agree with the district court that Brandy’s right to exercise his First Amendment rights without facing retaliation from government officials is clearly established.”).
Green v. City of St. Louis, No. 22-1288, at *5 (8th Cir. Nov. 1, 2022) (stating that “it was clearly established that deploying tear gas would chill a person of ordinary firmness”).
Welch v. Dempsey, No. 21-3504, at *4 (8th Cir. Oct. 20, 2022) (“Dempsey’s arguments thus do not undermine the district court’s conclusion that Welch’s right to be free from a retaliatory use of force was clearly established at the time of the incident.”).
Peterson v. Kopp, 754 F.3d 594, 603 (8th Cir. 2014) (“A reasonable jury could conclude, based on this account, that Kopp pepper sprayed Peterson in retaliation for asking for his badge number, and Peterson’s First Amendment right was clearly established at the time of the incident.”).