Allan Hinshaw v. Keith Moore
666 F. App'x 565
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- Hinshaw owns ~50 acres in Mississippi County, MO; a pathway across his land has been used since 1965 to access neighboring properties (Riley Estate, Tomera property, Dorena Hunt Club). No written easement.
- On Oct. 20, 2012, three hunters used the pathway to reach Tomera. Later, after noticing tire tracks, Hinshaw blocked the path with barbed wire and parked his tractor, refusing hunters access back through the route.
- The hunters contacted Sheriff Keith Moore, who told them Hinshaw would be arrested if he did not move the tractor; Moore then told Deputy Michael Borders to intervene. Borders spoke with the county prosecutor, who advised he could charge Hinshaw with false imprisonment and peace disturbance.
- Borders went to the property, asked Hinshaw to move the tractor; upon Hinshaw’s refusal Borders arrested him, removed the wire, and allowed the hunters to pass. Hinshaw was booked and strip-searched by corrections officer Gerald Douglas; criminal charges were later dismissed.
- Hinshaw sued Moore, Borders, and Douglas under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Fourth, Fifth, Fourteenth Amendment violations; conspiracy) and alleged a state-law claim against Douglas for the strip search. The district court granted summary judgment to the officers on qualified immunity grounds and declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claim. Hinshaw appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Borders had constitutional liability for arresting Hinshaw (probable cause) | Hinshaw argues arrest lacked probable cause because he lawfully excluded others from his land and did not threaten force | Borders contends he had at least arguable probable cause: pathway had long-term use as an access road and prosecutor advised charges | Held: Qualified immunity applies; arguable probable cause existed for false imprisonment and peace disturbance charges |
| Whether Borders’ arrest lacked required element of forcible compulsion for false imprisonment | Hinshaw: no physical force or threats, thus no forcible compulsion under MAI-CR | Defendants: blocking path with barbed wire and tractor plus refusal to allow passage could be an implied threat; prosecutor consultation supports reasonableness | Held: A reasonable officer could conclude Hinshaw’s conduct implied forcible compulsion; probable cause arguable |
| § 1983 conspiracy claim against officers | Hinshaw: officers conspired to deprive his constitutional rights via arrest | Officers: absent unconstitutional arrest, no deprivation and thus no viable conspiracy claim | Held: Dismissed—because Borders had arguable probable cause, no constitutional deprivation; summary judgment proper |
| Whether district court should have retained supplemental jurisdiction over state-law strip-search claim | Hinshaw: court should remand or retain claim | Defendants: district court may decline jurisdiction after dismissing federal claims | Held: District court did not abuse discretion in declining supplemental jurisdiction because remaining claim depends solely on state law |
Key Cases Cited
- Mountain Pure, LLC v. Roberts, 814 F.3d 928 (8th Cir. 2016) (qualified immunity review and standards)
- Coates v. Powell, 639 F.3d 471 (8th Cir. 2011) (qualified immunity requires violation of clearly established rights)
- Moore v. Indehar, 514 F.3d 756 (8th Cir. 2008) (plaintiff’s burden to present evidence sufficient for a jury to find constitutional violation against an officer)
- Borgman v. Kedley, 646 F.3d 518 (8th Cir. 2011) (warrantless arrest protected if at least arguable probable cause exists)
- Frye v. Kansas City Mo. Police Dep't, 375 F.3d 785 (8th Cir. 2004) (prosecutor advice bears on reasonableness though does not automatically confer immunity)
- White v. McKinley, 519 F.3d 806 (8th Cir. 2008) (elements required to prove § 1983 civil conspiracy)
- Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635 (U.S. 2009) (standard of review for declining supplemental jurisdiction)
- Glorvigen v. Cirrus Design Corp., 581 F.3d 737 (8th Cir. 2009) (courts should decline supplemental jurisdiction when remaining claims turn solely on state law)