Micah Riggs v. Robert Gibbs
923 F.3d 518
| 8th Cir. | 2019Background
- Riggs owned businesses at 3535 Broadway (Coffee Wonk at 3535D and Wonk Exchange at 3535A) and rented Suite 201 upstairs.
- September 27, 2010: Officers Barbour and Feagans responded to a burglary, accompanied by building manager Christopher Long, who opened Suite 201; officers observed lab equipment and called Metro Meth, which processed the scene and seized items without Riggs’s consent.
- September 27, 2010 (same day): Detective Toigo investigated a robbery at Coffee Wonk, went behind the counter for fingerprints, observed Syn-brand incense, and later Detectives Toigo and Taylor seized incense from behind the counter; factual disputes exist about whether consent to seize was given or withdrawn.
- October 3, 2012: Following a tip that a “coffee” business with a liquor license sold K2, Detective Whaley made a controlled buy of synthetic incense at Coffee Wonk; Detectives Onik and Gibbs (and Sergeant Dumit) then entered and seized additional items; a city official initially misidentified Coffee Wonk as licensed.
- Riggs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Fourth Amendment violations from the 2010 and 2012 warrantless searches and seizures; officers moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity — district court granted in part and denied in part, leaving factual disputes on consent, apparent authority, plain-view/withdrawn consent, and whether the 2012 search was a pretextual criminal investigation.
- The officers appealed the denials of qualified immunity; the Eighth Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the appeals turned on genuine disputes of material fact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of 2010 Suite 201 entry/search (Long’s authority) | Riggs: Long lacked actual/authority; officers could not reasonably rely on consent | Officers: Long represented authority to open door; search lawful if reasonable belief in apparent authority | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction — resolution depends on disputed facts about Long’s authority |
| 2010 seizure of Syn incense behind counter (plain-view/consent withdrawal) | Riggs: clerk withdrew consent before seizure; seizure unlawful | Officers: incense was in plain view; initial access was lawful so seizure reasonable | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction — depends on factual dispute whether consent was withdrawn after initial lawful entry |
| 2012 Coffee Wonk search (administrative-search exception vs. pretext) | Riggs: search was a pretextual criminal raid, not a genuine administrative ‘‘tavern check’’ | Officers: search qualified as an administrative/tavern inspection and thus lawful without warrant | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction — depends on factual determination whether search was a subterfuge for criminal investigation |
| Appellate reviewability of denial of qualified immunity | Riggs: factual disputes preclude qualified-immunity determination | Officers: order denying immunity reviewable as legal question | Court: lacked jurisdiction to review because the appeals hinge on contested facts; pure legal issues only reviewable at this stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (scope of interlocutory review of denials of qualified immunity)
- Wallace v. City of Alexander, 843 F.3d 763 (fact disputes not reviewable in interlocutory qualified-immunity appeal)
- Berry v. Doss, 900 F.3d 1017 (limited jurisdiction to legal issues in qualified-immunity appeals)
- United States v. Brown, 635 F.3d 656 (plain-view doctrine elements)
- United States v. Knight, 306 F.3d 534 (administrative-search exception requires adequate substitute for warrant)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (actual motivations matter in administrative-search context)
- Sanders v. United States, 424 F.3d 768 (consent to search may be withdrawn)
- White v. McKinley, 519 F.3d 806 (insufficient-evidence arguments creating factual disputes are not reviewable on interlocutory appeal)