192512P.pdf   07/16/2021  Teresa Graham  v.  Shannon Barnette
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  19-2512
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota   
   [PUBLISHED] [Gruender, Author, with Wollman and Kobes, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - Civil rights. For the court's prior opinion in the matter, 
   see Graham v. Barnette, 970 F.3d 1075 (8th Cir. 2020). The Supreme Court 
   vacated this court's judgment and remanded the matter for further 
   consideration in light of Caniglia v. Strom, 141 S.Ct. 1596 (2021). Held: 
   the defendant police officers were entitled to qualified immunity on 
   plaintiff's claim they violated her clearly established Fourth Amendment 
   right to be free from unreasonable searches by entering her home without a 
   warrant because it was not clearly established at the time of the incident 
   that their actions were unreasonable in light of the circumstances; 
   warrantless entry was reasonable under the legal rules that were clearly 
   established at that time; with respect to plaintiff's claim that the 
   officers violated her Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable 
   seizure when they seized her for a mental health exam without probable 
   cause to believe she was a danger to herself or others, the court again 
   concludes that probable cause of dangerousness is the standard that must 
   be met for a warrantless mental-health seizure to be reasonable under the 
   Fourth Amendment; assuming that the officers lacked probable cause, they 
   were entitled to qualified immunity because their actions did not violate 
   clearly established law under the lower reasonable-belief standard some 
   Eighth Circuit precedents suggested was the requisite standard at the 
   time; with respect to plaintiff's claim of retaliatory arrest, the 
   district court did not err in granting defendants' motion for summary 
   judgment as no reasonable jury could conclude that retaliatory animus was 
   a but-for cause of plaintiff's arrest; with respect to plaintiff's claim 
   that the City's policy concerning seizures for emergency mental-health 
   evaluation was facially unconstitutional, the district court properly 
   granted defendants summary judgment as the policy requires probable cause 
   that the person is a threat to self or others; nor did plaintiff show the 
   City had inadequately trained police officers regarding the policy; 
   finally, the officers were entitled to either statutory or official 
   immunity on plaintiff's state law claims.