Gardner v. Momon: Fourth Circuit Reaffirms Grand-Jury Indictment as Conclusive Proof of Probable Cause in First-Amendment Retaliation & Excessive-Force Suits

Introduction

The decision in Anthony Gardner, Jr. v. Kenyatta Momon, et al. (4th Cir. Aug. 4, 2025) addresses a familiar but continually recurring set of civil-rights claims: arrest-related First Amendment retaliation, Fourth Amendment excessive force, and companion state-law torts. Anthony Gardner, having live-streamed menacing statements and ultimately striking two Fairfax County police officers, sued those officers and the County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Virginia law. The Eastern District of Virginia granted summary judgment to the defendants; the Fourth Circuit affirmed.

Although unpublished, the opinion is significant for the following reasons:

It reinforces that a grand-jury indictment establishes probable cause as a matter of law, foreclosing retaliatory-arrest claims (Durham v. Horner applied).
It underscores the growing weight that body-worn-camera (BWC) footage receives at the summary-judgment stage, echoing the Supreme Court’s directive in Scott v. Harris.
It illustrates the practical interplay between Fourth-Amendment use-of-force doctrine (Graham v. Connor) and common-law tort defenses in Virginia.

Summary of the Judgment

After reviewing BWC video, livestream recordings, and undisputed facts, the Fourth Circuit held:

Probable Cause & First Amendment – The officers had probable cause to arrest Gardner for disorderly conduct, confirmed by a subsequent grand-jury indictment. Under Nieves v. Bartlett, the existence of probable cause defeats a retaliatory-arrest claim.
Excessive Force – Applying the Graham factors, the court ruled that the takedown, hand strikes, and leg restraint were objectively reasonable given Gardner’s punches, active resistance, and the officers’ knowledge that he possessed a knife.
State-Law Claims – Because the force was lawful, the battery, gross-negligence, and intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims failed under Virginia law. The absence of any constitutional violation doomed Gardner’s Monell claim against Fairfax County.
Result – Summary judgment for all defendants affirmed in full.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) – Video evidence controls when it “blatantly contradicts” the non-movant’s version of events.
Nieves v. Bartlett, 587 U.S. 391 (2019) – Retaliatory-arrest claim generally fails where probable cause existed.
Durham v. Horner, 690 F.3d 183 (4th Cir. 2012) – A grand-jury indictment conclusively establishes probable cause for civil-rights suits.
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) – Objective-reasonableness standard for use of force; key factors reiterated.
Monell v. New York City Dep’t of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) – Municipal liability predicated on underlying constitutional violation.
Recent Fourth-Circuit authority on summary judgment and use of BWC footage: Simmons v. Whitaker, 106 F.4th 379 (4th Cir. 2024); Somers v. Devine, 132 F.4th 689 (4th Cir. 2025).
Virginia common-law tort cases: Ware v. James City Cnty., 652 F. Supp. 2d 693 (E.D. Va. 2009) (battery); Frazier v. City of Norfolk, 362 S.E.2d 688 (Va. 1987) (gross negligence standard).

Legal Reasoning

Indictment as Probable Cause
Citing Durham, the panel treated Gardner’s three-count indictment (disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, felonious assault) as dispositive evidence of probable cause. Because probable cause is an objective standard, it defeated Gardner’s First Amendment theory, no matter his allegations of retaliatory motive. The court’s reasoning tightens an already narrow “no-probable-cause” exception recognized in Nieves.
BWC Footage & Disputed Facts
Leveraging Scott, the court refused to credit Gardner’s version where contradicted by clear video—e.g., his contention that he posed no threat while reaching into his pocket. This underscores how summary-judgment battles are increasingly won or lost on video review.
Graham v. Connor Application
• Severity of Crime: Disorderly conduct (a misdemeanor) escalated to felonious assault once Gardner punched officers.
• Immediate Threat: Prior knife warning and active punches indicated danger.
• Active Resistance: Continued striking while on the ground justified targeted head strikes.
Result: All force—including the leg sweep to seat Gardner—was proportionate and temporally limited to overcoming resistance.
Derivative State-Law Counts
Because the arrest was lawful and force reasonable, the Virginia battery and gross-negligence claims collapsed. Absent a constitutional injury, Monell liability could not attach to the County.

Impact of the Decision

Retaliatory-Arrest Litigation – Plaintiffs must now confront an even steeper hill in the Fourth Circuit if indicted; the panel leaves little daylight for arguing that an indictment was procured through fraud or undue influence (the ordinary avenues for rebuttal).
Body-Camera Evidence – The opinion reaffirms that BWCs can truncate litigation by resolving “genuine disputes.” Agencies may cite this case when moving for early dismissal or summary judgment.
Police-Tactics Doctrine – Endorses measured “hand strikes” and brief leg restraints when the arrestee is still partially un-subdued, adding texture to what the Fourth Circuit deems “objectively reasonable.”
Municipal Liability Strategy – Illustrates the fragility of Monell claims premised solely on an allegedly unlawful single incident; counsel must gather policy- or custom-based evidence early.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Probable Cause – A reasonable belief, based on facts, that a person committed a crime. A grand-jury indictment is the legal system’s formal endorsement of that belief.
First-Amendment Retaliation (Arrest) – An arrest allegedly made because of protected speech. Under Nieves, if probable cause existed, the claim usually fails.
Objective Reasonableness – The court assesses the officer’s actions from the standpoint of a reasonable officer on the scene, not through 20/20 hindsight.
Monell Liability – A municipality is liable under § 1983 only if an official policy or longstanding custom caused the constitutional violation.
Gross Negligence (Virginia) – More than ordinary inadvertence; a showing of utter disregard for safety, bordering on recklessness.

Conclusion

Gardner v. Momon is less about breaking new doctrinal ground than about knitting together existing precedents into a decisive, practical roadmap for police-misconduct litigation in the Fourth Circuit. By:

Affirming that a grand-jury indictment definitively supplies probable cause,
Elevating video evidence as a summary-judgment trump card, and
Applying Graham to validate proportional, moment-specific force,

the panel effectively shields officers and municipalities from liability where objective facts (and cameras) corroborate lawful policing. Future plaintiffs must now marshal stronger, earlier evidence—either impeaching the indictment process or exposing systemic municipal practices—to survive dispositive motions in the Fourth Circuit.