Tabatha Manning v. Vaughn Cotton
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 12013
8th Cir.2017Background
- Manning was stopped for a broken taillight, admitted lacking a license/registration, and officers confirmed two outstanding misdemeanor warrants; they arrested her and placed her in the rear passenger seat of a police cruiser.
- Officers’ cruiser had an in-car camera that recorded until the vehicle was turned off; recording ceased before Manning exited the cruiser.
- After arrival at the jail and while Manning was unattended in the backseat, Officer Delezene discovered a small plastic bag of methamphetamine on the passenger door seal; Manning denied ownership.
- Officers reviewed video footage, found it inconclusive, refused to fingerprint the package or administer a drug test, and charged Manning with possession; she was jailed for three days.
- Manning sued the officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (alleging planting of evidence, false testimony, conspiracy, due process violations) and sued the City for municipal liability/failure to train.
- The district court granted summary judgment on the conspiracy claim but denied qualified immunity to both officers and denied the City’s summary judgment; the City appealed and the officers pursued interlocutory review of qualified immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Qualified immunity for Officer Cotton | Cotton planted drugs or was complicit; disputed facts preclude immunity | Cotton had probable cause for the stop and arrest; planting is speculative | Denied — genuine disputes about whether Cotton placed the drugs; viewing facts for plaintiff, immunity inappropriate at summary judgment |
| Qualified immunity for Officer Delezene | Delezene was near where drugs were found and could have planted them; credibility dispute | Delezene discovered drugs only after Manning was unattended; video inconclusive; arrest and stop lawful | Denied — material factual disputes (how drugs got there) require jury credibility findings |
| Legality of stop and arrest | Stop/arrest unlawful if supported by false premises | Broken taillight and warrants provided reasonable suspicion and probable cause | Officers entitled to qualified immunity for the traffic stop and for the arrest (stop and arrest lawful) |
| City of Omaha municipal-liability appealability | City seeks summary judgment; argues appeal is intertwined with officers’ immunity | Denies pendent jurisdiction; municipal liability requires separate analysis | Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction — municipal claim not "inextricably intertwined" with interlocutory immunity ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (established the modern qualified immunity standard)
- Livers v. Schenck, 700 F.3d 340 (8th Cir. 2012) (manufacture of false evidence violates due process)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (stops require reasonable, articulable suspicion)
- Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (right is clearly established when its contours are sufficiently clear)
- Roberts v. City of Omaha, 723 F.3d 966 (qualified immunity requires individualized officer analysis)
- Baribeau v. City of Minneapolis, 596 F.3d 465 (personal liability requires officer's own conduct to violate rights)
- Shannon v. Koehler, 616 F.3d 855 (interlocutory appellate review limited to qualified immunity under collateral order doctrine)
- Veneklase v. City of Fargo, 78 F.3d 1264 (failure-to-train municipal-liability inquiry not coterminous with officers' qualified immunity)
- Coker v. Ark. State Police, 734 F.3d 838 (credibility determinations for disputed factual issues reserved for jury)