Daniel Rassier v. John Sanner, 996 F.3d 832

Jacob Wetterling was abducted and murdered in 1989; Daniel Rassier reported seeing a suspicious vehicle at his mother Rita’s driveway the night of the abduction.
Daniel repeatedly criticized the Stearns County police and Sheriff John Sanner’s investigation; Patty Wetterling and police recorded a 2009 conversation in which Daniel criticized the police.
On June 30–July 1, 2010, investigators executed a search warrant of the Rassier property, seized items, removed soil, and—according to the Rassiers—Sanner twice told Daniel, “This is what happens when you talk.” Media covered the search and Sanner later called Daniel “at least a person of interest.”
Danny Heinrich confessed to the murder in 2016; the Rassiers first saw the unsealed search-warrant affidavit that year.
The Rassiers sued in 2017 asserting § 1983 First Amendment retaliation, municipal liability, defamation, and IIED. The district court granted summary judgment as time-barred; the Rassiers appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
When did § 1983 First Amendment retaliation claim accrue?	Accrued in 2016 when Rassier first saw the unsealed affidavit and Heinrich confessed.	Accrued in 2010 when the alleged retaliatory acts (search, statement) occurred and were known.	Accrual occurred in 2010; § 1983 claim barred by six-year limitations.
When do defamation and IIED claims accrue?	Accrued in 2016 with affidavit/confession.	Accrued at the 2010 publication/search—the tortious acts occurred then.	Accrued in 2010; state-law claims barred by two-year limitations.
Should statutes of limitations be equitably tolled?	Tolling warranted because the killer was not identified until 2016 and plaintiffs lacked proof and opportunity to obtain relief earlier.	No tolling: plaintiffs had actual knowledge in 2010, failed to act diligently, and no extraordinary, invincible circumstance prevented filing.	Denied: plaintiffs knew of retaliation by July 1, 2010; no extraordinary circumstance justified tolling.
Is the municipal liability claim timely?	Municipal claim derives from the retaliation claim and is timely if retaliation accrued in 2016.	Derivative municipal claim is untimely if the underlying § 1983 claim accrued in 2010.	Derivative municipal claim is untimely because the underlying claim accrued in 2010.

Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (2007) (accrual rule for § 1983 and tort accrual principles)
Bay Area Laundry & Dry Cleaning Pension Tr. Fund v. Ferbar Corp. of California, 522 U.S. 192 (1997) (accrual and statute of limitations principles)
Graham Cty. Soil & Water Conserv. Dist. v. United States ex rel. Wilson, 545 U.S. 409 (2005) (retaliation accrual when retaliatory act occurs)
Gekas v. Vasiliades, 814 F.3d 890 (7th Cir. 2016) (First Amendment retaliation accrual starts at retaliatory act)
Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031 (8th Cir. 2011) (standard of review for summary judgment)
United States v. Bailey, 700 F.3d 1149 (8th Cir. 2012) (Minnesota six-year limitations for § 1983 claims)
Wild v. Rarig, 234 N.W.2d 775 (Minn. 1975) (defamation accrues at publication)
Sanchez v. State, 816 N.W.2d 550 (Minn. 2012) (Minnesota standard for equitable tolling; limited application)
Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010) (equitable tolling requires diligence and extraordinary circumstances)
Dring v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 58 F.3d 1323 (8th Cir. 1995) (tolling is an exception, applied only in exceptional circumstances)