49 F.4th 1132
8th Cir.2022Background
- On Oct. 3, 2019 Des Moines officers followed Jared Clinton’s car after a passenger made a brief, nervous-looking movement and because officers could not read a paper temporary tag in the rear window.
- Officers approached; Minnehan confirmed the temporary tag was legible and valid on close inspection; Garrett smelled marijuana at Clinton’s window and later saw signs he associated with marijuana.
- Officers searched the vehicle and occupants, found a vape pen and cartridge alleged to contain THC, and arrested Clinton; criminal charges were later dropped when the prosecutor declined to pursue the case.
- Clinton sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Fourth Amendment) and under the Iowa Constitution, asserted conspiracy claims, and sued the City and police chief for deliberate indifference. Defendants removed to federal court.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Clinton on the federal Fourth Amendment and Iowa-constitutional seizure claims against the officers and granted limited relief on a state municipal claim; it left damages for trial. Defendants appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Qualified immunity for officers on §1983 Fourth Amendment claim | Clinton: stop unsupported by reasonable suspicion; unlawful seizure | Officers: stop reasonable because tag was unreadable, nervous passenger, high‑crime area, and prior experience with forged tags | Denied qualified immunity; officers violated a clearly established Fourth Amendment right—summary judgment for Clinton affirmed on federal claim |
| Substantive Fourth Amendment: was inability to read temporary tag enough for stop? | Clinton: inability to read a valid temporary tag does not create particularized suspicion | Officers: unreadable tag plus passenger behavior/area gave reasonable suspicion; analogized to cases where unreadable tag supported stops | Stop was unconstitutional — inability to read a valid temporary tag (without other particularized facts) is insufficient; McLemore controls |
| Appellate jurisdiction over state-law (Iowa) immunity and municipal claims | Clinton: (no separate defense) | Defendants: argued district court erred denying state immunity and municipal summary judgment and sought interlocutory review | Court: dismissed appeal as to state-law claims for lack of jurisdiction because the order was not final and defendants did not obtain §1292(b) certification |
| Municipal deliberate indifference claim against City | Clinton: City liable for deliberate indifference under federal/state law | City: summary judgment should have been granted; municipal liability contested | Appellate court did not reach merits of state municipal claim (appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as to Counts 2 and 6); federal qualified-immunity ruling left municipal/federal claim disposition unchanged at appellate stage |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. McLemore, 887 F.3d 861 (8th Cir. 2018) (holding inability to read a valid temporary paper tag alone does not support a stop)
- United States v. Givens, 763 F.3d 987 (8th Cir. 2014) (upholding stop where officer credibly testified he could not determine whether paper in window was a registration card based on prior experience)
- United States v. Mendoza, 691 F.3d 954 (8th Cir. 2012) (officer’s specific observations about tag appearance supported suspicion of falsification)
- United States v. Sanchez, 572 F.3d 475 (8th Cir. 2009) (stop upheld where officer could tell before the stop that rear plate was noncompliant)
- Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366 (2003) (general Fourth Amendment principles regarding seizure and probable cause)
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) (Fourth Amendment search/seizure standards)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (two-step qualified immunity framework)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (limits on investigative stops; reasonable suspicion required)
- United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002) (totality-of-circumstances test for reasonable suspicion)
- Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979) (random stops and need for articulable, reasonable suspicion)
- City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000) (invalidating stops justified only by generalized law-enforcement purposes)
- Buckley v. Rogerson, 133 F.3d 1125 (8th Cir. 1998) (clarifying clearly established-law inquiry for qualified immunity)
(Selected authorities cited by the court to analyze reasonable suspicion and qualified immunity.)