58 F.4th 995
8th Cir.2023Background
- Ryno had a history with victim Crystal Aynsley: prior harassment plea (2014) and a full order of protection against him effective Feb. 27, 2014; as part of his probation he agreed to a search condition for person/place/residence.
- In late October 2014 Waynesville police surveilled Ryno for a week based on multiple witness reports and officers’ observations that he repeatedly drove near Aynsley and was present where she was.
- On Oct. 30, 2014 officers followed Ryno onto a dead-end street (Summit Pass); he reversed into the driveway adjacent to the victim’s driveway and was arrested without a warrant for aggravated stalking/harassment. Inventory searches of his car uncovered numerous suspicious items and electronic devices.
- Officers obtained warrants to search Ryno’s home and computer using affidavits that included some inaccurate or overstated factual assertions; the searches yielded no additional incriminating evidence and criminal charges were later dismissed.
- Ryno sued under § 1983 for unreasonable seizure, conspiracy to cause false arrest, and unreasonable searches (plus other claims dismissed below); the district court granted summary judgment for defendants, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unreasonable seizure (warrantless arrest) | Ryno: arrest lacked probable cause; officers misapplied order of protection | Officers: totality of circumstances (prior conviction, multiple witness reports, repeated drives by victim, Summit Pass conduct) gave probable or arguable probable cause | Arrest supported by probable cause or at minimum arguable probable cause; Cordova and Meir entitled to qualified immunity (affirmed) |
| Conspiracy to cause false arrest | Ryno: officers conspired to deprive him of constitutional rights by fabricating grounds for arrest | Defendants: no underlying constitutional violation, so conspiracy claim fails | Claim fails because no constitutional deprivation; qualified immunity (affirmed) |
| Unreasonable search — home | Ryno: warrant affidavit contained material falsehoods/overstatements that vitiate probable cause | Defendants: Ryno’s probation search condition diminished privacy; officers had reasonable suspicion (plus items from car) to search | Probation search condition reduced expectation of privacy; reasonable suspicion supported home search despite inaccuracies; qualified immunity (affirmed) |
| Unreasonable search — computer | Ryno: affidavit inaccuracies and need for particularized probable cause make computer search unlawful | Defendants: affidavit supported at least reasonable suspicion; only minor inaccuracy so warrant/deference remains valid | Minor inaccuracies did not defeat the warrant; reasonable suspicion (or deference to magistrate) sufficed for computer search; qualified immunity (affirmed) |
Key Cases Cited
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified immunity two-step framework)
- Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (clearly established right standard)
- District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577 (scope of qualified immunity; ‘‘plainly incompetent’’ language)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (material falsehoods in warrant affidavits)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (probable cause—totality of the circumstances and magistrate deference)
- Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868 (diminished Fourth Amendment expectations for probationers)
- United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112 (probation search condition: reasonable suspicion standard)
- Borgman v. Kedley, 646 F.3d 518 (probable cause for arrest—totality standard)
- Brown v. City of St. Louis, 40 F.4th 895 (arguable probable cause vs. probable cause distinction)