Allan Rodgers v. Daniel Knight
781 F.3d 932
8th Cir.2015Background
- Two consolidated § 1983 appeals: Rodgers (Greg and Allan Rodgers) and Franklin (Raymond and Robert Franklin) arising from arrests, searches, prosecutions, and seizure/retention of firearms in Columbia, Missouri.
- Rodgers: Greg arrested Aug. 12, 2011 on a municipal failure-to-appear warrant; officers saw him discard a Browning 9mm; search warrant executed at his apartment seized multiple guns from a locked storage closet; charges were filed (concealed carry → amended to fugitive-possession); convictions dismissed on appeal and prosecutions later dropped; most guns returned within months, one returned after appeal denial.
- Rodgers plaintiffs sued police, prosecutors, City of Columbia and Boone County for violations of Fourth, Fifth, First, Second, and Fourteenth Amendment rights; district court granted summary judgment for defendants; appeal followed.
- Franklins: 2008 search of Robert’s home in drug investigation produced drugs and 12 firearms; prosecutors charged Raymond (Robert’s son) as a felon-in-possession based on circumstantial evidence (mail/package with Raymond’s name in locked bedroom); charge later dismissed; most guns returned in 2012.
- Central legal questions: probable cause for arrests and warrants; scope of search and plain-view seizures; retention of firearms without post-deprivation hearing; prosecutorial absolute immunity; qualified immunity for officers; municipal failure-to-train claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause for Greg Rodgers’ arrest/prosecution (concealed carry/fugitive-possession) | Rodgers: officers lacked probable cause after he said he had a Florida concealed-carry permit; dwelling-unit exception applied | Defendants: arrest supported by municipal warrant; officers reasonably doubted Florida permit and could believe common areas not covered by dwelling exception | Arrest and prosecution supported by at least arguable probable cause; prosecutors immune; officers entitled to qualified immunity |
| Probable cause and scope for Rodgers’ search warrant and seizure of guns from storage closet | Rodgers: warrant lacked basis because "fugitive from justice" unclear; storage closet beyond scope | Defendants: phrase was unsettled; officer reasonably sought warrant; closet appurtenant to apartment (key, control) | Officers entitled to qualified immunity for warrant procurement and scope of search; seizure reasonable |
| Retention of seized firearms (Rodgers & Franklins) — due process/post-deprivation hearing | Plaintiffs: prolonged retention without post-deprivation process violated Fourteenth Amendment | Defendants: retention justified as evidence for pending/appellate/proposed prosecutions; prosecutors immune for direction to retain | Retention was reasonable while investigations/prosecutions were pending; no due process violation and defendants entitled to immunity |
| Second Amendment claim from temporary seizure/retention | Plaintiffs: seizure/retention infringed right to bear arms | Defendants: lawful seizure/retention (or even unlawful retention) does not implicate the Second Amendment as a constructive ban | Second Amendment claims dismissed; seizure/retention not a constitutional violation |
| First Amendment retaliation/equal protection claims | Plaintiffs: arrests/prosecutions were retaliatory (Rodgers) or retaliatory/racially motivated (Franklin) | Defendants: arrests/prosecutions supported by probable cause; prosecutors absolutely immune; no evidence of discriminatory treatment | Claims dismissed: qualified immunity for officers (arguable probable cause); prosecutors absolutely immune; no proof of discrimination |
| Municipal failure-to-train (Columbia, Boone County) | Plaintiffs: municipalities failed to train on concealed-carry reciprocity, dwelling exception, constructive possession, warrant scope, evidence retention | Defendants: no underlying constitutional violation; rights not clearly established; no deliberate indifference | Failure-to-train claims fail because no underlying violation or clearly established law; municipalities not liable |
Key Cases Cited
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) (prosecutors have absolute immunity for initiating prosecutions)
- Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (1986) (qualified immunity for warrant-based actions unless application so lacking in probable cause that belief was unreasonable)
- Walters v. Wolf, 660 F.3d 307 (8th Cir. 2011) (retention of seized property as evidence can satisfy due process; unlawful retention after dismissal can violate rights)
- Clayborn v. Struebing, 734 F.3d 807 (8th Cir. 2013) (officers not required to accept arrestee's claim of out-of-state permit; qualified immunity analysis)
- City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989) (municipal liability for failure to train requires deliberate indifference and causal link)
- Lathon v. City of St. Louis, 242 F.3d 841 (8th Cir. 2001) (due process violation when property withheld after charges dismissed and officials refuse return absent court order)
- United States v. Nichols, 344 F.3d 793 (8th Cir. 2003) (firearms may be tools/evidence of drug trafficking and thus seizable)
- Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990) (plain-view doctrine permits seizure of evidence in plain view during lawful access)
- Szabla v. City of Brooklyn Park, 486 F.3d 385 (8th Cir. 2007) (municipality cannot be deliberately indifferent when the constitutional right was not clearly established)
- Parrish v. Ball, 594 F.3d 993 (8th Cir. 2010) (prosecutors not liable under § 1983 for search/warrant conduct absent participation)