Mountain Pure v. Cynthia Roberts
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 3290
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- Mountain Pure and several employees sued two federal agents (SBA agent Cynthia Roberts and IRS agent Bobbi Spradlin) under Bivens for alleged Fourth Amendment violations arising from a January 18, 2012 search of a 100,000 sq. ft. bottling facility.
- Agents executed a warrant authorizing seizure of broad business, purchasing, and tax records; ~35 law-enforcement officers arrived with lights/sirens, wearing vests and carrying weapons per agency policy.
- During a protective sweep, some employees were pushed against walls and an agent pointed a weapon at a vice-president; employees were detained in a break room for varying portions of the nearly 12-hour search and had cell phones seized or restricted.
- Seized items included machine drawings/schematics and an employee’s tax binders/textbook; plaintiffs alleged those items were outside the warrant’s scope.
- District court granted summary judgment to the agents on qualified immunity grounds; plaintiffs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excessive force in executing warrant (number of officers/weapons) | Presence of many armed officers and weapon displays was unreasonable for nonviolent fraud | Size of facility justified many officers; agency policy required weapons; conduct objectively reasonable | Judgment for defendants; no excessive-force violation by Roberts or Spradlin |
| Unlawful seizure of corporate records (drawings, schematics, manuals) | Seized items were not "business" or "purchasing" records authorized by warrant | Items reflected equipment ownership and reasonably fell within warrant scope; officers need not interpret warrant narrowly | Judgment for defendants; seizure reasonable and within scope |
| Unlawful detention of employees (length, incommunicado, coerced questioning) | Employees detained long, denied phone access, and coerced into interrogation | Detentions during a search are permissible to prevent flight, protect officers, and facilitate search; no evidence detentions were prolonged to coerce answers; phone seizures/limits reasonable to preserve evidence | Judgment for defendants; detentions and questioning reasonable and qualified immunity applies |
| Excessive force against specific employees (pushed and weapons pointed) | Bush, Morgan, and Court Stacks were subjected to excessive force by agents | No evidence Roberts or Spradlin ordered, condoned, or participated in those acts; claims against unnamed agents dismissed | Judgment for defendants; plaintiffs dismissed claims against unnamed agents and no liability for Roberts/Spradlin |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (recognition of implied damages action against federal agents for constitutional violations)
- Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93 (officers may detain occupants during execution of a search warrant for safety and orderly completion of search)
- Dalia v. United States, 441 U.S. 238 (manner of executing a warrant is subject to Fourth Amendment reasonableness review)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (objective-reasonableness standard for excessive-force claims)
- McClendon v. Story County Sheriff’s Office, 403 F.3d 510 (officers executing a warrant need not interpret it narrowly)
- Coates v. Powell, 639 F.3d 471 (qualified immunity framework; need for clearly established right with some factual correspondence)
- United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (balancing intrusion against governmental interests for seizures)
- Ganwich v. Knapp, 319 F.3d 1115 (Ninth Circuit case finding possible coercion by prolonged detention and denial of phone access could preclude qualified immunity)
- Bailey v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1031 (limiting detention during searches to persons in immediate vicinity; recognized but post-dated the seizure at issue)