954 F.3d 1125
8th Cir.2020Background
- Deputies Joseph Minor and Josh Baker went onto property owned by Richard Thiel after a tip that a stolen vehicle was on his parcel; they located the vehicle, Minor obtained a warrant to search the property and seize the vehicle, and the vehicle was towed.
- While executing the first warrant, deputies could not find the vehicle keys and expanded the search into private areas of Thiel’s home (including an underwear drawer), where they found a key and fob; Thiel was not charged.
- About a month later, after a witness (Bonnie Murray) reported shots and feared Thiel had fired at her, deputies interviewed witnesses and obtained a warrant to seize any and all handguns and evidence of firearms discharge in the prior seven hours (including GSR testing); officers seized multiple handguns (including antiques and boxed guns), holsters, and related items; Thiel was not charged.
- Thiel sued the deputies and Sheriff Stephen Korte alleging Fourth Amendment unreasonable searches/seizures, an insufficiently particular warrant, supervisory/municipal liability, and a procedural-due-process violation for refusing to return property. The district court granted summary judgment to defendants; Thiel appealed.
- The Eighth Circuit reviewed de novo, focused on whether officers exceeded warrant scope, whether warrants were particular, whether Korte could be held individually or officially liable, and whether an available state procedure foreclosed a federal due-process claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of first warrant and expanded search for keys | Thiel: deputies exceeded warrant scope, rummaged in private areas in bad faith to harass; keys not authorized | Deputies: keys and related items are component parts or reasonably related to the stolen vehicle seizure; an objectively reasonable officer could so conclude | Officers entitled to qualified immunity; reasonable to seize keys as related to vehicle (Butler, Stepnes) |
| Seizure under second warrant; holsters and antique/boxed guns | Thiel: seizure of antiques, boxed guns, and holsters exceeded warrant and were not tied to alleged shooting; warrant insufficiently particular | Deputies: warrant authorized seizure of any and all handguns; holsters reasonably related to investigating whether Thiel had a gun on him | Seizures lawful; warrant sufficiently particular and encompassed the seized items |
| Supervisory and municipal liability for Sheriff Korte | Thiel: Korte liable individually and in official capacity | Defendants: Korte did not participate in warrant procurement/execution; no failure-to-train or municipal policy/custom alleged or proved | Summary judgment for Korte; no individual participation, no failure-to-train claim pled, and no municipal policy/custom shown |
| Procedural due process for refusal to return property | Thiel: Korte violated due process by refusing to return property and he should be able to pursue federal claim without state remedy | Defendants: adequate post-deprivation remedy exists under Missouri law (Mo. Rev. Stat. § 542.301); state process must be used | No due-process violation because adequate state procedure was available; federal claim rejected (Zinermon) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Butler, 793 F.2d 951 (8th Cir. 1986) (officers may seize component parts of items described in a warrant)
- Stepnes v. Ritschel, 663 F.3d 952 (8th Cir. 2011) (items not mentioned in a warrant may be seized if reasonably related to the crime for which the warrant issued)
- Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006) (an officer’s subjective intent is not controlling in Fourth Amendment reasonableness analysis)
- Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551 (2004) (warrants must particularly describe items to be seized)
- Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113 (1990) (no procedural-due-process violation until the state fails to provide adequate process)
- Lewis v. City of St. Louis, 932 F.3d 646 (8th Cir. 2019) (qualified immunity standard explained)
- Corwin v. City of Independence, 829 F.3d 695 (8th Cir. 2016) (municipal liability requires continuing, widespread pattern of misconduct)
- Mettler v. Whitledge, 165 F.3d 1197 (8th Cir. 1999) (details needed to show prior complaints amount to a municipal custom)
- Johnson v. Blaukat, 453 F.3d 1108 (8th Cir. 2006) (supervisory liability requires direct participation or failure to supervise/train)