Eighth Circuit
Mai Yang Yang v. City of Minneapolis, CIVIL 21-2658 ADM/ECW, at *15 (D. Minn. June 15, 2022) (stating that “it has been clearly established that a person cannot be detained for a prolonged period merely due to their presence at a crime scene”).
Davis v. Dawson, 33 F.4th 993, 999 (8th Cir. 2022) (“There is also a robust consensus that seizing witnesses to a crime in similar circumstances is a clearly established constitutional violation.”).
Yang v. City of Brooklyn Park, 194 F. Supp. 3d 865, 874 (D. Minn. 2016) (“In sum, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Yang, Sergeant Erickson and Detective Thomas violated the Fourth Amendment when they continued to detain Yang after they determined that he had not called in the bomb threats. Because no reasonable officer could have concluded that the continued detention of Yang was lawful, neither officer is entitled to qualified immunity.”).
Magnan v. Doe, CIV. 11-753 JNE/SER, 2012 WL 5247325, at *8-9 (D. Minn. July 6, 2012) (stating that it was “clearly established that a person cannot be held beyond the time required for a diligent investigation,” and that it was “clearly established at the time that officers must use the least intrusive means reasonably available to detain and that confinement in a squad car was viewed as intrusive”).
Rayford HICKMAN, Pl., v. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, Minneapolis Police Dept., and Officer Scott Olson., Defendants., 02-4157, 2004 WL 1459443, at *3 (D. Minn. Feb. 10, 2004) (“Because Olson must have known that continued detention violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights, he is not entitled to summary judgment.”) (footnote omitted).
Eubanks v. Lawson, 122 F.3d 639, 641 (8th Cir. 1997) (“An investigative stop may only last so long as is necessary to conduct a reasonable investigation. . . . Because an investigative stop is supported by less than probable cause, an officer must diligently investigate and use the least intrusive means reasonably available to confirm or dispel his suspicion in a short period of time.”).