Darryl Riddle v. Sergeant Timothy Riepe
866 F.3d 943
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- On Oct. 12, 2013, KCPD Officer Robinson attempted a traffic stop of Jereal McKinney; McKinney drove to and parked at Darryl Riddle’s house. Robinson detained McKinney; Riddle watched from about ten feet away.
- Officer Oldham approached Riddle and attempted to pat him down; Riddle stepped back, said “Stop touching me,” pulled his arm away, and stated he was at home.
- Sergeant Riepe then intervened, took Riddle to the ground, handcuffed him, and Riddle was arrested and charged under Kansas City Ordinance § 50-44(a) for hindering/obstructing an officer.
- Robinson completed an incident report and a General Ordinance Summons describing Riddle as coming into close proximity and failing to comply with verbal commands; the charge was later not prosecuted and dismissed.
- Riddle sued officers alleging (among other claims) malicious prosecution (Missouri law), fabrication of evidence under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and § 1983 conspiracy; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants and Riddle appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Riddle's Argument | Defendants' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Malicious prosecution — probable cause for charge under Kan. City § 50-44(a) | Riddle argued lack of probable cause for prosecution; district court wrongly relied on his abandonment of false arrest claim | Officers had probable cause because Riddle repeatedly stepped back, pulled away from pat-down, and interfered with officer questioning | Affirmed: probable cause existed; malicious prosecution fails despite any alleged malice |
| Fabrication of evidence (due process) — whether officers deliberately falsified facts in the Summons | Riddle contended the Summons falsely claimed he came into close proximity and failed to comply with commands, and alleged motive to justify force | Defendants showed video and testimony supporting proximity and noncompliance; any report inaccuracies were negligent or based on hearsay, not deliberate fabrication | Affirmed: no genuine dispute of deliberate fabrication; negligence insufficient for § 1983 claim |
| Conspiracy to fabricate evidence under § 1983 | Riddle argued officers conspired (e.g., dashcam comments, mic off) to manufacture charges | Conspiracy claim depends on an underlying constitutional violation; none proved | Affirmed dismissal of conspiracy claim as derivative of fabrication claim |
| Evidentiary weight of officers’ statements and dashcam (motive inference) | Riddle urged motives (camera angle talk, turning off mic, remarks) support fabrication inference | Court: motive evidence cannot substitute for affirmative proof of fabricated evidence | Affirmed: motive alone insufficient without proof of fabrication |
Key Cases Cited
- Helmig v. Fowler, 828 F.3d 755 (8th Cir.) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Kurtz v. City of Shrewsbury, 245 F.3d 753 (8th Cir.) (probable cause element for malicious prosecution)
- Zahorsky v. Griffin, Dysart, Taylor, Penner & Lay, P.C., 690 S.W.2d 144 (Mo. Ct. App.) (malicious prosecution requires strict, clear proof, and probable cause defeats claim)
- Winslow v. Smith, 696 F.3d 716 (8th Cir.) (fabrication-of-evidence claim requires deliberate manufacture of false evidence)
- Livers v. Schenck, 700 F.3d 340 (8th Cir.) (negligence or gross negligence insufficient to show fabrication)
- Kansas City v. LaRose, 524 S.W.2d 112 (Mo. banc) (city ordinance broader than state resisting statute; interference can constitute violation)