Mark Greenman v. Officer Jeremiah Jessen
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 8807
8th Cir.2015Background
- Mark Greenman (an attorney) was arrested three times by Medina, MN officers while operating a Segway; charges included DWI, operating without due care, and related offenses. Some charges were amended or dismissed; he pleaded guilty to a petty misdemeanor for operating a Segway on a roadway.
- Judges in state court twice held a Segway is not a "motor vehicle" under Minnesota’s DWI statute; the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed on that point for one prosecution. Charges from the third arrest were later dismissed.
- Greenman sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Fourth Amendment (unreasonable search/seizure), Fourteenth Amendment (due process), and First Amendment (retaliation) violations; he also alleged municipal liability and several state-law torts.
- The district court dismissed all federal claims based on qualified immunity for the officers and the city prosecutor and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state claims; Greenman appealed.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed, reasoning the officers had probable or at least arguable probable cause to arrest Greenman for traffic offenses governing electric personal assistive mobility devices (Minn. Stat. ch. 169), independent of the DWI question.
- The court found declaratory and injunctive relief moot because no DWI charges remain pending and the state appellate ruling made the DWI theory unavailable; municipal and state claims were left to state court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Qualified immunity for arrests (Fourth Amendment) | Greenman: arrests lacked probable cause because a Segway is not a motor vehicle and DWI did not apply | Officers/prosecutor: had probable or arguable probable cause to arrest for traffic violations (operating on roadway, lack of lights, failure to use due care) | Held: Defendants entitled to qualified immunity; probable/arguable probable cause existed for non-DWI traffic offenses |
| Prosecutor liability for advice to police | Greenman: prosecutor advised officers to continue DWI arrests despite losing on the issue, so liable | Tallen: advice not actionable because arrests were supported by probable cause and qualified immunity applies | Held: Qualified immunity protects prosecutor because arrests had probable cause |
| Substantive due process for repeated prosecutions | Greenman: repeated arrests/prosecutions after dismissal violated substantive due process | Defendants: Fourth Amendment addresses wrongful arrests/prosecutions; no separate substantive due-process claim | Held: Claim fails—Fourth Amendment analysis controls and was resolved against Greenman |
| First Amendment retaliation | Greenman: arrests motivated by retaliation for his representation of a client/engaging in protected speech | Defendants: arrests were supported by probable/arguable probable cause, precluding retaliation claim | Held: Retaliation claim fails; qualified immunity applies because probable cause existed |
Key Cases Cited
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (framework for qualified-immunity analysis)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (established modern qualified-immunity standard)
- Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (2004) (officer’s subjective reason for arrest irrelevant when facts support probable cause for a different offense)
- Peterson v. Kopp, 754 F.3d 594 (8th Cir. 2014) (qualified-immunity two-step and probable-cause discussion)
- Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224 (1991) (qualified immunity protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law)
- Anderson v. Larson, 327 F.3d 762 (8th Cir. 2003) (prosecutor not absolutely immune for giving legal advice during an investigation; qualified immunity may still apply)
- Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395 (1975) (case-or-controversy requirement and prohibition on advisory opinions)