Pointing stun gun at woman was reasonable, appeals court rules in Springdale case

In split decision, judges rule pointing stun gun at woman was reasonable

FAYETTEVILLE -- A Springdale police officer who pointed a stun gun at a woman while he was detaining her two sons at gunpoint acted reasonably, a split three-judge federal appeals court panel ruled Thursday.

Lamont Marzolf was accused in a civil lawsuit of wrongly holding two teens at gunpoint as they walked home from their grandparents' house on a rainy night in 2018 and then threatening their mother when she tried to intervene.

Marzolf was helping other officers search for four suspects who had fled from police on foot after crashing their car. They were possibly armed. Marzolf had set up a perimeter in a residential neighborhood on Lynn Street when two teens, ages 12 and 14, approached him on foot.

Marzolf stopped the teens and told them to lie face down on the ground at gunpoint. They were handcuffed and searched, according to the lawsuit. The boys' mother, Casondra Pollreis, sued on behalf of her children and herself claiming Marzolf and another officer, Josh Kirmer, violated their civil rights. Kirmer was later dismissed from the lawsuit.

The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals judges said that, given the circumstances presented, Marzolf's act of showing his authority by commanding Pollreis to move back and return to her home then momentarily pointing his stun gun at Pollreis to regain control of the situation was reasonable. Marzolf is entitled to qualified immunity for his actions, as U.S. District Judge Timothy L. Brooks had ruled earlier in the case, according to the appeals court panel.

Qualified immunity protects police officers and public officials from being sued for damages unless they violate "clearly established" law of which a reasonable official in their position would have known. It aims to protect civil servants from the fear of litigation in performing discretionary functions entrusted to them by law.

Marzolf was alone on the scene when Pollreis approached from behind, and Marzolf was placed in a position where he had two possibly armed suspects detained in front of him and a third unknown individual approaching from behind, creating a potentially serious safety risk, the judges noted.

"Adding to the circumstances, when Officer Marzolf ordered Pollreis to 'get back,' she moved to the side, but she did not immediately comply by moving backward. Rather, she questioned the order and moved sideways," according to the opinion. "Ordered to get back a second time, she again questioned the order and remained where she was until after the Taser was drawn."

Anya Bidwell, an attorney with the Institute for Justice in Arlington, Va., who represented the boys and their mother, believes the appeals court is wrong.

This case demonstrates what's wrong with qualified immunity, she said. Whether Pollreis complied with the officer's command when he told her to step back and she stepped sideways is a question for the jury, Bidwell said Thursday.

"These judges should not have interfered in that process and sanctioned Officer Marzolf's violation of Cassi's constitutional right," she said.

In a dissenting opinion, Judge Jane Louise Kelly wrote in cases where the record doesn't conclusively establish the lawfulness of an officer's use of force, summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity is inappropriate. Kelly noted Pollreis couldn't have moved directly back because she was standing in front of Marzolf's patrol car, instead she walked back the way she had come.

"Based on these facts, a reasonable jury could find that Pollreis complied, or was attempting to comply, with Officer Marzolf's request to 'get back,'" Kelly wrote.

Kelly said the primary inquiry should have been whether Pollreis engaged in conduct justifying the use of force at all.


Upcoming Events