680 F. App'x 703
10th Cir.2017Background
- On May 20, 2014 a Walgreens theft was captured on video; the clerk later identified Hartz as the perpetrator.
- Darren Campbell, an off-duty Topeka police officer working as store security, reviewed the video, interviewed the clerk, and was told the suspect returned and pointed to Hartz.
- Campbell (in uniform) confronted Hartz in line, led him toward the manager’s office, a physical struggle occurred, Hartz fled through a drive‑thru window and was arrested after backup arrived.
- Campbell prepared an arrest report charging Hartz with battery on an officer, felony theft (based on priors), obstruction, and criminal damage; at trial Hartz was acquitted of theft/damage, convicted of battery, and sentenced to six months.
- Hartz filed a § 1983 suit against Campbell, the prosecutor, the judge, the Topeka PD, Shawnee County, and the State, seeking >$5 million; the magistrate ordered show cause, Hartz failed to respond, and the district court sua sponte dismissed for failure to state a claim.
- The Tenth Circuit affirmed, holding (inter alia) that Campbell had probable cause, prosecutors and judges have absolute immunity, and sovereign/municipal claims were barred or waived.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of seizure/arrest (Fourth Amendment) | Campbell seized/arrested Hartz on speculative information and emotional overreach | Campbell had video and an eyewitness ID supporting arrest | Probable cause existed; seizure lawful |
| Misdemeanor in‑presence requirement | Arrest invalid under Kansas law because misdemeanor occurred outside officer’s presence | Fourth Amendment, not state law, governs; no federal in‑presence rule requiring § 1983 liability | Federal law does not impose an in‑presence requirement; arrest not invalid for § 1983 purposes |
| Prosecutor liability for withholding video | Smith withheld exculpatory evidence (video) | Prosecutor has absolute immunity for prosecutorial acts | Prosecutor immune from § 1983 damages |
| Judicial liability for presiding over trial/sentencing | Judge acted improperly in proceedings | Judges have absolute judicial immunity for actions in judicial capacity | Judge immune from § 1983 damages |
| Claims vs. State, County, Police Dept. | Hartz sued multiple governmental entities | Sovereign immunity bars state; municipal liability requires a policy or custom; plaintiff did not pursue these arguments on appeal | Claims against the State barred; municipal/department claims not sustained and waived |
Key Cases Cited
- Maresca v. Bernalillo Cty., 804 F.3d 1301 (10th Cir. 2015) (Fourth Amendment seizure standards)
- Keylon v. City of Albuquerque, 535 F.3d 1210 (10th Cir. 2008) (probable cause standard for arrests)
- Michigan v. DeFillippo, 443 U.S. 31 (1979) (acquittal irrelevant to arrest validity)
- Phillips v. Allen, 668 F.3d 912 (7th Cir. 2012) (eyewitness ID can supply probable cause)
- Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (2001) (no clear Fourth Amendment in‑presence requirement for misdemeanor arrests)
- Becker v. Kroll, 494 F.3d 904 (10th Cir. 2007) (prosecutorial absolute immunity for withholding evidence)
- Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24 (1980) (judicial absolute immunity in § 1983 suits)
- Coleman v. Court of Appeals of Md., 566 U.S. 30 (2012) (state sovereign immunity against damages suits)