Patrick Fitzgerald Ester appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment based on qualified immunity. We have carefully reviewed the record and considered Ester’s arguments for reversal. See Robinette v. Jones, 476 F.3d 585, 590-91 (8th Cir. 2007) (de novo standard of review). We agree with the district court that the question whether defendants reasonably believed their actions violated the Fourth Amendment turns on the objective reasonableness of them conduct and not on their subjective intent. See McClendon v. Story County Sheriff's Office, 403 F.3d 510, 515-16 & n. 4 (8th Cir. 2005) (officer’s subjective intent is never relevant under Fourth Amendment analysis so long as there exists objective basis for seizure). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny Ester’s motion to supplement the record.