William Carter v. Kenny Huterson
831 F.3d 1104
8th Cir.2016Background
- William Carter, a civilly committed sexually violent predator at Fulton State Hospital, alleged DMH employees and two Highway Patrol officers forcibly took his fingerprints, mouth swab, and blood sample while he refused without a warrant.
- Carter claimed he was physically assaulted by nine staff, suffering finger injuries and a bruised arm, and that he was denied appropriate medical treatment.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing the collection was authorized by Missouri law, that Carter failed to plead excessive force plausibly, and that they were entitled to qualified immunity.
- The district court dismissed Carter’s § 1983 claims, holding: the warrantless collection was a reasonable, minimal intrusion given Carter’s reduced privacy interest; Carter failed to plead excessive force; and defendants were entitled to qualified immunity.
- On appeal, Carter challenged only the Fourth Amendment claim arising from the warrantless, forcible blood draw to obtain a DNA profile; the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment arguments were not pressed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants violated the Fourth Amendment by warrantless drawing of blood for DNA from a civilly committed SVP | Carter: As a civilly committed person (not pretrial detainee or prisoner), defendants needed individualized suspicion and a warrant before taking blood | Defendants: Law (including Missouri statute) and precedent permitted warrantless collection; state interests justify DNA collection; qualified immunity applies | Court: Did not decide Fourth Amendment violation; granted qualified immunity because no clearly established right forbidding warrantless DNA blood draw from civilly committed SVPs at the time |
| Whether the manner/force used to obtain blood violated Fourth Amendment (excessive force) | Carter: Defendants ‘‘physically assaulted and attacked’’ him resulting in injuries | Defendants: Any force used was the minimal coercion necessary to obtain an otherwise lawful sample and was reasonable given Carter’s resistance | Court: Dismissed excessive-force claim — allegations were conclusory and injuries consistent with resistance; failed to plead facts showing force was objectively unreasonable |
| Whether defendants violated Eighth/Fourteenth Amendment rights by manner/delay in medical treatment | Carter: (alleged inadequate medical care and procedure) | Defendants: Pleading insufficient; conduct lawful in context; qualified immunity | Court: Dismissed for failure to plead facts showing constitutional violation (not pursued on appeal) |
| Whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity | Carter: Rights were clearly established; defendants should be liable | Defendants: Reasonable officers could believe conduct lawful given then-existing precedent and state statute | Court: Held defendants entitled to qualified immunity on the blood-draw claim because the constitutional rule was not clearly established at the time |
Key Cases Cited
- James ex rel. James v. Friend, 458 F.3d 726 (8th Cir. 2006) (qualified immunity discussion)
- Trooien v. Mansour, 608 F.3d 1020 (8th Cir. 2010) (Rule 12(b)(6) review standard)
- Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 588 F.3d 585 (8th Cir. 2009) (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard)
- Bradford v. Huckabee, 394 F.3d 1012 (8th Cir. 2005) (qualified immunity on the face of the complaint)
- Beaulieu v. Ludeman, 690 F.3d 1017 (8th Cir. 2012) (civilly committed retain Fourth Amendment protection similar to pretrial detainees)
- Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. 435 (2013) (warrantless DNA cheek swab of pretrial detainee permissible)
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966) (blood draws involve minimal risk/trauma)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (qualified immunity standard)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (use-of-force objective-reasonableness standard)
- Brown v. City of Golden Valley, 574 F.3d 491 (8th Cir. 2009) (force necessary to execute lawful seizure)
- Shekleton v. Eichenberger, 677 F.3d 361 (8th Cir. 2012) (suspect resistance relevant to force analysis)
- Chambers v. Pennycook, 641 F.3d 898 (8th Cir. 2011) (degree of injury relevant to excessive-force inquiry)