Frank Snider, III v. Matthew Peters
752 F.3d 1149
8th Cir.2014Background
- Snider shredded and attempted to burn an American flag in his yard on Oct 20, 2009; neighbor reported the incident to police.
- Peters arrived, found the flag in the road, and Snider in his yard; Peters cited Snider under the city’s littering ordinance, which was voided later.
- Peters learned of Mo. Rev. Stat. § 578.095 and drafted a probable-cause statement and secured a warrant for Snider’s arrest; Swingle submitted the warrant to Judge Kamp.
- Snider was arrested Oct 23, 2009 and held about eight hours; neither Peters nor Swingle knew of Texas v. Johnson/Eichman at the time, and the charge was dismissed after Swingle read those cases following a reporter’s inquiry.
- Snider filed a §1983 action on Jul 6, 2010 against Cape Girardeau and Peters; Missouri intervened Apr 21, 2011; the district court later granted Snider some relief, denied Peters’ qualified-immunity motion, and awarded Snider attorneys’ fees; the parties appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Peters is entitled to qualified immunity for arrest under §578.095 | Snider | Peters | No; rights were clearly established. |
| Whether Mo. § 578.095 is facially unconstitutional | Snider | Missouri | Yes; statute not susceptible to narrowing. |
| Attorneys’ fees: apportionment and rates | Snider | Peters/Missouri | District court did not abuse discretion; joint and several liability upheld; St. Louis rates appropriate. |
| Municipal Monell/Training liability against Cape Girardeau | Snider | Cape Girardeau | District courtcorrectly rejected Monell/ training claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 405 (U.S. 1974) (expressive flag conduct protected by First Amendment)
- Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (U.S. 1989) (flag desecration statutes unconstitutional as applied to expressive conduct)
- United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1990) (federal flag protection act struck as applied to flag desecration)
- Messerschmidt v. Millender, 132 S. Ct. 1235 (S. Ct. 2012) (warrant issuance does not automatically negate objective reasonableness)
- Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (U.S. 1987) (objective reasonableness in qualified immunity analysis)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (U.S. 1982) (qualified immunity standard overview)
- Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601 (U.S. 1973) (overbreadth framework for facial challenges)
- Virginia v. Hicks, 539 U.S. 113 (U.S. 2003) (overbreadth and substantiality in facial challenges)
- Williams v. United States, 553 U.S. 285 (U.S. 2008) (substantial overbreadth standard in overbreadth analysis)
- City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (U.S. 1989) (deliberate indifference and municipal liability standard)