993 F.3d 626
8th Cir.2021Background:
- A high-speed crash in a Corvette killed passenger Dorothy Finley; Oakley Engesser was found outside the car near the driver’s door and was accused of being the driver.
- Trooper Edward Fox concluded Engesser was the driver based on occupant locations and injury patterns; Engesser was convicted of vehicular homicide and battery.
- Years later new witnesses (including a security guard and a passerby) came forward saying a woman had been driving; state courts granted habeas relief and overturned Engesser’s convictions.
- Engesser sued Trooper Fox and supervisor Michael Kayras under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a conscience-shocking reckless investigation (ignoring exculpatory evidence, not interviewing witnesses), improper storage/allowing removal of evidence, failure to supervise, and conspiracy.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants; the Eighth Circuit reviewed whether the investigation violated substantive due process and whether any right was clearly established for qualified-immunity purposes.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Trooper Fox’s investigation was constitutionally deficient (reckless/purposeful disregard) | Fox ignored eyewitness statements and leads indicating Finley was driving, and failed to follow up on key witnesses | Fox relied on physical-scene evidence (occupant locations, injuries); any investigatory gaps were negligent, not conscience-shocking | No constitutional violation; investigation at worst negligent/grossly negligent, not reckless or purposeful misconduct |
| Whether failure to preserve/protect the Corvette (and allowing family access) violated due process | Leaving car outside and permitting family access allowed destruction/loss of exculpatory evidence | Officers were unaware impound practices; failure to secure was negligent, not intentional spoliation | No constitutional violation; conduct was negligent, not conscience-shocking |
| Supervisory liability for Kayras | Kayras failed to supervise/train Fox, so responsible for constitutional injury | No underlying constitutional violation by Fox, and no evidence Kayras directly participated | Claim fails because there is no underlying constitutional violation to base supervisory liability on |
| Civil-conspiracy claim | Conspiracy to deprive Engesser of constitutional rights via the flawed investigation | No deprivation of a constitutional right occurred | Claim fails for lack of an actual deprivation of constitutional rights |
Key Cases Cited
- Akins v. Epperly, 588 F.3d 1178 (8th Cir. 2009) (describing circumstances that indicate conscience-shocking investigative failure)
- Winslow v. Smith, 696 F.3d 716 (8th Cir. 2012) (gross negligence not enough; purposeful ignoring of evidence may show conscience-shocking conduct)
- Johnson v. Moody, 903 F.3d 766 (8th Cir. 2018) (rigorous standard for reckless-investigation claims)
- Kingsley v. Lawrence Cnty., 964 F.3d 690 (8th Cir. 2020) (questionable or incomplete investigation is not conscience-shocking as a matter of law)
- Wilson v. Lawrence Cnty., 260 F.3d 946 (8th Cir. 2001) (recklessness found where officers failed to investigate leads and relied on an involuntary confession)
- Amrine v. Brooks, 522 F.3d 823 (8th Cir. 2008) (negligence/gross negligence insufficient for substantive-due-process violation)
- Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031 (8th Cir. 2011) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Engesser v. Young, 856 N.W.2d 471 (S.D. 2014) (state supreme court granting habeas relief overturning Engesser’s convictions)
- State v. Engesser, 661 N.W.2d 739 (S.D. 2003) (trial and appellate proceedings resulting in original conviction)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (principles governing an officer’s failure to preserve/preserve potentially exculpatory evidence analyzed in related contexts)
- County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (1998) (conscience-shocking standard for substantive-due-process claims)
- Henry v. Johnson, 950 F.3d 1005 (8th Cir. 2020) (supervisory-liability claim requires underlying constitutional violation)
