Brian Arthur Hill v. Patrick Scott

objected permit strongly giving BYE, BOWMAN, and Before HEANEY Rasmussen, who felt threatened and Judges. Circuit Scott, police back-up. called for Officers BYE, Judge. Circuit responded and Pavlak Pierce to the scene. pursu- filed Brian Arthur Hill this action participate Officer did not Scott claiming § three ant U.S.C. being per- actual arrest of Hill—such task Department of Paul Police officers the St. by Pierce. formed Officers Pavlak and his and state rights Constitutional violated leading But actions to the arrest Scott’s tort law when arrested and detained issue, are at and are as follows. When granted summary The him. district court arrived, recognized three officers Scott judgment grounds for defendants on the dispatcher Hill and asked a to conduct protected from the fed- the defendants are him. Specifically, warrant check on immunity, Hill by qualified eral claims dispatcher asked information claims, tort de- failed to and establish “Hill,” name last first “Brian” name protected were from the state fendants 20s, possible male late black in his with a immunity. ap- official claims state a sus- Hague possibly address evi- arguing proffered he sufficient peals, dispatcher replied The pended license. the officers violated dence show outstanding there an misdemeanor clearly rights. affirm. established We Hill, traffic warrant on a Brian Walter I August who was 5'11" born eyes, charge pounds green on the proper of re- Pursuant to the standard driving view, below, proof with no insurance. following are described any deny Brian not confirm or undisputed dispatcher facts. Arthur did summary judgment information. Scott believed war- other on the basis told appellant rant was Offi- qualified immunity and the district court cers Pavlak Pierce there was granted motion. Hill appeals. vehemently out for Hill. Hill de- II having a tried nied warrant. The officers Hill on the he resist- to arrest warrant but Appellate review of grant of summary retreated into his ed and house. judgment novo, is made de applying the and Pierce followed him inside and Pavlak same standard as the district court. The grabbed one an arm. Hill and his sister whether, question is when all evidence and with the fought officers. The officers reasonable inferences are drawn in the Hill sprayed and his sister mace and with light most favorable to plaintiffs, the the legal pro- arrested both for obstructing record the any shows existence of material cess. fact. v. Dept. Graves Arkansas &Fin. arrest, Hill’s After Pavlak and Pierce Admin., 721, (8th Cir.2000). F.3d 229 723 Hill to transported hospital for treat- judgment Summary will if only granted be Meanwhile, exposure. ment for mace shows evidence “there is no genuine dispatcher spe- Scott called the more with any issue as to material fact and that the Hill, namely, cific information about is moving party entitled to a judgment as a 24,1970. of April dispatch- birth date The 56(c). matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. The responded er Brian birth granted district court summary judgment Hill, Brian Arthur date was not Brian qualified on the immunity. basis of Hill, and outstanding Walter there were no Qualified immunity is to available for Brian infor- warrants Arthur Hill. That government prove officials who con their mation was communicated to Officers Pav- duct clearly did “not violate established lak Pierce who of Hill custody at statutory rights or Constitutional of which hospital. Pavlak and Pierce declined person a reasonable would have known.” request to Hill’s be released and booked Fitzgerald, 800, 818, Harlow v. 457 charge him a U.S. obstructing legal pro- 2727, (1982). 102 S.Ct. 73 L.Ed.2d To cess for the scuffle at 396 the Hill residence. summary judgment ultimately avoid being quali released without based on charged any immunity, that or fied proffer other offense aris- had to suffi ing from these events. cient evidence to find a violation of a Con right, right stitutional show the alleged Hill filed an complaint eleven-count clearly established at the time of against five individual defendants and the violation, alleged genuine and raise a issue City of St. Paul. Those winnowed were of material fact about whether reasonable (1) the following down to four Offi- claims: officers would have their known conduct by § cer violated 42 Scott U.S.C. 1988 clearly would have violated this established failing verify to the information received Aldrich, 1058, v. right. Smithson 235 F.3d (2) dispatcher; from the Officers Pavlak (8th Cir.2000). If alleges 1061 an officer § by failing and Pierce violated to by conduct an arrestee giving prob rise to release when learned there was able cause and those facts are (3) undisputed, him; Scott, no warrant Pavlak and immunity. qualified the officer is entitled to committed Pierce state law torts of false Mataya, nott v. 995 F.2d 123- intentionally arrest inflicted Ar (8th Cir.1993). If, (4) however, Hill; City emotional distress on the arrestee charged being vicariously challenges description is also liable the officer’s for state-law torts. The defendants moved a factual presents facts and account reasonably investigation thorough officer duct a reasonable permit not

would arrest, arresting is a material at least suspect, then there prior make judg- summary precluding dispute exigent and so factual circumstances absence at ment. Id. not ‘law would long [be] as enforcement agents ... if the ... unduly hampered Arrest Before the Acts A. Officer Scott’s seeking to obtain more facts before wait[ ] ” right Fourth Amendment The (quoting, arrest.’ Id. at 650 United proba arrested without be citizens Woolbright, 831 F.2d States Ha clearly See is established. cause ble Cir.1987)). (8th (8th Cir. Fargo, 80 F.3d biger this case are undisputed facts of claim, 1996). Hill must prevail on this To those materially distinguishable from (1) had no cause probable show Scott First, pro- none of the information Kuehl. (2) issue of him, genuine raise a dispatcher to Scott contra- vided of whether reasonable fact about material of Hill before the dicted what Scott knew conduct Scott’s have known ficers would first names were arrest. The and last Amend the Fourth have violated would identical, only are the two Brian Hills two Aldrich, at v. 235 F.3d ment. Smithson age, only in years apart and there was one argues probable Scott had no Hill 1061. twenty-five in height inch difference him, offi and a reasonable to arrest cause argues Hill weight. difference in pounds proba no have known there was would cer should have known the wanted Brian Scott (1) cause, between because differences ble dispatcher Caucasian because the dispatcher gave Scott the information for a Brian Hill told Scott warrant was Brian Hill and what the wanted about eyes. Hill concedes green Hill should But as in appellant knew about with Scott brief, Scott notice the warrant given (though have some African Americans his (2) else, should have rare) Kuehl, for someone green eyes. have Unlike if appel further to investigated determine there were no contradictions between the named in person Brian Hill was the lant dispatcher’s description and the warrant. prompted have a reasonable officer would Second, Burtis, investigate fully. 173 F.3d points Kuehl v. more (8th Cir.1999), support. Kuehl, for In Kuehl pos- 646 a investigating the officer was Eighth quali- of the found panel a Circuit sible crime the fact and based his immunity does an officer protect fied not probable for arrest assessment cause unreasonably investigate fails to suffi- who shoddy In this investigation. case at ciently arresting suspect. Id. a a for facially there was valid warrant investigating case an officer description of someone arrest with re- witness’s fight ignored independent markably Hill. appellant close assault, re- exculpating statement Kuehl Kuehl, Instead of arewe inclined for more than speak fused to Kuehl to look to similar cases where officers seconds, ignored twenty physical evidence subject for the of a mistook arrestee story with Kuehl’s she was the consistent The rule in those cases is that warrant. assault, victim, perpetrator, not facially mistaken arrest based on a valid from exculpatory omitted most evidence does violate the Fourth warrant holding police report. Id. at 648. In reasonably if the Amendment officers mis fully investigate failure be- the officer’s named person took the arrestee arresting fore Kuehl violated her Fourth 401 said, California, the warrant. v. U.S. rights, Amendment the Court “law 797, 802, 1106, duty to con- 91 28 L.Ed.2d enforcement officers have a S.Ct. 484

1073 (1971) (“When the police probable lar Security number, Social and lived in a cause to one party, arrest and when town); neighboring Barton, Blackwell v. reasonably party mistake second 298, (5th Cir.1994) (hold 34 F.3d 303-04 party, first then the arrest of the second ing an officer was reasonable in arresting arrest.”). party is a valid We answer this § plaintiff 1983 with the same first name by question looking totality at the of the physical similar characteristics as surrounding circumstances the arrest to those listed warrant); on the Brown v. determine its Rodriguez reasonableness. Patterson, (7th 167, 823 F.2d 169 Cir. Cir.2002) Farrell, (11th 1341, v. 280 F.3d 1987) (holding an officer was reasonable — denied, -, rt. U.S. ce § plaintiff with the same 1482, (2003); S.Ct. 155 L.Ed.2d 225 Pat race, name and but otherwise different Przybylski, ton v. 822 F.2d 699-700 information, identifying as was listed on (7th Cir.1987); Glover, United States warrant). (D.C.Cir.1984) (“The 725 F.2d Hill argues Scott should not have reasonableness arresting officers’ upon relied the consistencies between the conduct must be determined consider Hill, information and appellant ing totality of the circumstances sur rather, Scott should have conducted fur arrest”). rounding the Given the remark ther investigation by asking Hill or his ably similar descriptions of the two Brian family for Hill’s date of birth or middle Hills, we find the officers were reasonable name. Had Scott been able to confirm in mistaking the one the other. See Hill’s date of birth or middle name before Dill, (1st Brady 187 F.3d Cir. the arrest he would have had more reason 1999) (noting mistakenly arresting person to doubt was a wanted man.1 There of a different race was not unreasonable may have been no ensuing arrest and stating and that “courts have concluded struggle. Such a result would have been regularity relatively some minor preferable everyone involved, in discrepancies in physical or features other hindsight Scott should have taken the ex data do not render unreasonable an arrest step. tra But that is not question the pursuant a facially warrant.”); to valid us, hindsight is not the stan Miller, (7th Johnson v. 680 F.2d 42 dard. Cir.1982) The issue is whether Scott’s failure (concluding police officer’s mis- investigate to the birth date violated Hill’s identification arrest of a white woman rights, Constitutional pursuant and whether a to an arrest rea warrant for a black sonable officer Constitution); woman did not violate would know such a failure would Rodriguez, see also be Constitutional 280 F.3d at 1346-49 violation. This (holding a is not a mistaken arrest situation where was reasonable Scott knew Hill subject warrant, thus did not was not the constitute a Constitution or al § violation for purposes of 1983 where Scott knew investigation where further the plaintiff name, sex, shared the same would have revealed there was no warrant age, fugitive, and race as the had a simi- for Hill. This is a case where further inves- Patton, 1. We do question not decide the e.g., related (concluding F.2d at 698-99 whether it would have been a violation of the officer's arrest of man with same first and last Fourth Amendment if Scott had arrested Hill subject as name of a warrant was Consti- despite knowing his birthdate and middle despite tutional the fact the arrestee had driv- name were different from the ones on the state, er's license from a different an address warrant. Some courts have found Constitu- warrant, different from the one in the arrest tional arrests with similar differences between birth). and different date of See, subject arrestee and the of the warrant. engaged in the while the officer is on whether officer have cast doubt tigation would ” .... But of official duties Minn. subject performance warrant. § facts undisputed an arrestee 609.50. The show the case where State always that is probable subject facially valid Pavlak Pierce had Officers being denies inves- warrant; always can more violated this be there be cause to believe Hill law (and question directly verify identity. they experi to tigation cause witnessed is, enced) investigation does the Con- much of arrest. Hill ar how resistance In all the cir- require? light of stitution cannot be basis of gues his resistance cumstances, hold sufficient we Scott had cause to he committed the probable believe rea- identifying to information legal process consistent crime of obstruction of be ap- was for sonably conclude he had a to resist arrest. right cause officer Hill and no reasonable pellant Minnesota, right is a to resist an there known failing investigate (a.k.a. would bodily unjustified attack excessive Amend- violate the Fourth force) further would officer, right is no by an but there ment. or arrest. resist an unlawful search State (Minn. Kutchara, N.W.2d Continued B. Pavlak and Pierce: Officers 1984); Wick, State 331 N.W.2d Detention (Minn.1983). right Hill had a resist allege not Pavlak and does use of only if Pavlak’s and Pierce’s force initial rights with his Pierce violated However, improper or excessive. because, acknowledges, they as he arrest force; allege and he does excessive infor Scott’s had no reason disbelieve first, he arrest and then admits resisted being for Hill. of there a warrant mation response. physical the officers became Instead, vio Hill claims and Pierce Pavlak only argues resisting He he was because they rights when lated his Constitutional they right no him he believed him out to release found refused they might and was afraid use excessive arrest. there was no warrant for his force. This is not a for lawful resis basis “Continuing to hold an in hand individual Therefore, tance Minnesota. cuffs once it has been determined probable Pavlak and Pierce had cause to no lawful for the initial there was basis Hill had committed the crime of believe meaning of seizure is unlawful within the legal of and process obstruction could re v. Pow Rogers the Fourth Amendment.” discovering him in custody tain even (3d Cir.1997). ell, 446, F.3d How They no for his arrest. there was warrant ever, may indepen be a separate, there qualified immunity are entitled their dent for the Id. basis continued detention. actions. found, and The court and Pavlak district they cause argue, probable Pierce now had C. The Pendent Law Claims State to arrest Hill because violent resistance Scott, alleges Pavlak and legal process. arrest was of obstruction Pierce are liable for the state law tort of agree. We arrest; Scott for intentional false is liable distress; infliction of emotional and the law, it is a mis

Under Minnesota all “(1) obstructs, City vicariously is hable for hin person demeanor if a found the ders, above. district court offi- prevents or lawful execution criminal, high conduct insufficient to meet any ap or cers’ legal process, civil or infliction of prehension charge con threshold intentional emo- of another on a or (2) offense; tional distress the arrest was reason- viction of a criminal ob [or] structs, resists, Hill’s peace or with a able for the same reason federal interferes fail. agree; claims We the officers affirm summary are judgment on the state law City immune and the is not liable. tort claim of intentional infliction of emo- tional distress. law, Under Minnesota the ele ments intentional infliction of emotional Hill’s state tort law claim of false (1) distress are: the defendant’s conduct arrest fails for the same reason discussed (2) outrageous; was extreme and the con above: the officers reasonably believed (3) reckless; duct was intentional or it there was a warrant for Hill’s arrest when distress; (4) caused emotional the dis they him, first arrested probable tress was severe. Hubbard v. United cause to believe committed obstruction Int’l, Inc., 428, Press 330 N.W.2d 438-39 legal process when he resisted that ar (Minn.1983). The conduct “must be ex rest. State provides law immunity official outrageous, treme and so atrocious that it just reasonable acts as federal law passes the boundaries of decency and is provides qualified immunity for federal utterly intolerable to the civilized commu Morris, claims. Johnson v. 453 N.W.2d nity.” Haagenson v. Nat’l Farmers Un 31, (Minn.1990). 41-42 Under Minnesota Co., Prop. ion & Cas. 277 N.W.2d law, question comes down whether (Minn.1979) (citation omitted). 652-53 n. 3 the officers acted “reasonably lawfully On a claim for intentional infliction of emo under the circumstances.” Perkins v. St. distress, tional summary judgment prop is (Minn. Louis County, 397 N.W.2d er if party does not meet high stan Ct.App.1986). The undisputed evidence dard of proof needed for the claim. shows the officers so acted. We therefore Thorne, Strauss v. 490 N.W.2d 913 affirm summary judgment of the state law (Minn.Ct.App.1992). against claims City. officers and The intentional infliction of emo HEANEY, Judge, Circuit dissenting. tional against distress claim Scott includes I concur the majority’s opinion as it an additional factual twist. Hill alleges, Pierce, relates to Officers Pavlek and and would testify, during the confron only arrested Brian Hill after Officer said, tation you. “Fuck your Get Scott informed them that a valid warrant Black ass the house.” Scott denies had been issued for a Brian Hill. I dis- statement, making the so we dis however, agree, that Officer Scott’s curso- pute of fact which cannot be resolved on ry investigation into whether the warrant summary judgment. But we do not need actually pertained to Plaintiff Brian Hill to resolve it. assuming Even Officer Scott approached required the level to shield statement, made the obscene his actions do him from suit. I respectfully therefore not rise to the level of an intentional inflic dissent from portion of the majority’s tion of emotional distress. For the rea opinion. above, sons described Officer Scott’s inves This matter comes to appeal us on from tigation Hill of was reasonable. The use of granting summary order judgment on such highly charged insulting lan qualified immunity grounds. Thus, we guage, highly while improper and not to be condoned, view “the evidence and the does not raise Scott’s otherwise inferences may which be proper reasonably drawn in it reasonable actions above the from the light Hill, most decency” “bounds of favorable” to the non- bar. Stead-Bowers v. (Minn.Ct. 334, Dumas, Langley, moving party. 636 Lambert City N.W.2d 343 (“The (8th Cir.1999) App.2001) 931, emotional 187 F.3d (emphasis distress must added). be so severe that no reasonable man could a plaintiff alleges Where that he it.”). be expected Therefore, to endure unlawfully arrested, we was qualified immuni- arrived, if to call. When respond officer the Scott arresting the only protect ty will intervene, to but rather objectively attempt reasonable. he did not the arrest was (8th Alles, 805, 21 F.3d to Mean- support for other arrive. Ripson waited Cir.1994). may be entitled while, investigate he whether decided mistakenly arrest immunity for qualified any outstanding war- wanted for Hill was the a long as mistake was suspects, ing so rants. Burtis, 173 F.3d Kuehl v. one.

reasonable Hill, else, anyone did not ask or Scott (8th Cir.1999). In the 646, absence birth, driver’s license for Hill’s date circumstances, a arrest is mistaken exigent address, name, any number, or oth- middle it a suffi follows only when “reasonable” characteristic, per- before identifying er investigation establishing grounds cient forming his check. None of these warrant Id. at the intrusion. included in identifying characteristics were dispute, had an Prior to current inquired check. Scott sim- warrant Scott’s Po- Paul history with the St. unfortunate any warrants issued for ply whether were spanned several Department lice male, twenties, a first a late with black 1995, by offi- In he was assaulted years. Hill, name of Brian and last name of who Paul bar and restaurant. cers outside a St. possible Hague a address of 1081 had American, Hill, alleged that at an African license. A possible suspended a driver’s epi- racial officers used a least one for a misdemeanor traffic offense Then, in during this encounter. thet Hill, for a Brian was confirmed Walter his Scott entered Paul Police Officer St. age, approximat- height, weight whose investigate home without a warrant Brian Hill. Brian ed that of Plaintiff Wal- assaulted Hill inside call and police Hill, however, green eyes. ter con- physical this second During home. or operator did not confirm the race ad- frontation, suggested Hill should Hill, nor did dress Brian Walter she his lesson” from the have “learned state whether his driver’s license sus- in ac- again Yet Hill was incident. pended. Paul officers costed Police when St. point, upon At this it was incumbent him on war- attempted an invalid Qualified inquiry. a further Scott make rant at his house. Officers restrained immunity granted min- time, though very he should not be when shared few for a even suspect. investigation imal would have characteristics with wanted further Kuehl, Department Paul the suspect. Hill sued the Police cleared 173 F.3d at St. to the incidents. and its chief due above majority distinguishes 650. The between Kuehl, matter with settled cases such as which an officer defendants, including Scott. fully arresting investigate fails to officer suspect, and those which an mis- than year Less Hill settled takenly on an wrong person arrests the lawsuit, he faced conflict again with a outstanding Assuming this dis- warrant. giv- Paul Police Department, St. valid, agree tinction is I that Officers Pav- ing rise to instant On June lawsuit. conduct lek’s and Person’s falls within the 15, 1999, Parking Officer Enforcement they ar- category, “mistaken arrest” house, trying outside Rasmussen was Hill’s faulty Hill information rested based that parking permit to retrieve a disabled hand, from Scott. On the other Officer reported had been stolen. Rasmussen and better the Kuehl line Scott’s behavior fits got argument per- into an about cases, investigate failure mit, of and his eventually called Rasmussen validity of is Ac- first the warrant inexcusable. back-up support. Scott was the Baer, warrant, 863 F.2d. 608 Scott knew the nature of the cord Edwards v. (8th Cir.1988) (finding arresting officer he not knew that did have to arrest Hill on qualified from immunity was entitled to Moreover, of type this warrant. there is investigated sufficiently suit where officer no evidence that Hill presented flight valid). whether warrant was contrary, risk. On the he has lived at the same in nearly address St. Paul for follow-up A simple operator call to the life. Particularly light entire of Hill’s requesting additional information such as history adversarial Hill, or Scott and the St. the address of Brian Walter Department, Paul Police request for Hill’s driver’s license or birth Scott’s actions date, simple query or even a about Hill’s are not reasonable as a matter of law. color, eye that would alerted Scott short, Scott cannot excused be for his Brian Hill no war- outstanding this sufficiently investigate failure to whether nothing, however, to con- rants. Scott did Plaintiff Brian Hill subject was true of broadcasting firm the warrant before the warrant. With minimal further inqui- that Hill fellow officers was wanted. ry, spared Scott would have yet from Thus, Edwards, this is not case like unjustified another of intrusion Hill’s liber- arresting where the officer confirmed the ty. I would therefore reverse the district existence of what turned out to be of grant summary judgment court’s as it arresting invalid warrant before twice related to Officer Scott. case, suspect. In that we held investigation officer’s additional rea- in light totality

sonable circum- Here,

stances. Id. at 608-09. even complained he did not have a him, outstanding against warrant did America, UNITED STATES perform slightest not ex- even further Appellee, telling amination if to determine v. the truth. Appellant. COLEMAN, Kenneth held in- district court that further America, Appellee, United States of vestigation practicable part was not be- cause the called quick situation action. Kuehl, (holding

See F.3d at 650 offi- Worthy, Appellant. Andre fully cer’s investigate failure to ar- America, Appellee, United States resting may justified by cir- exigent be cumstances). The presented, evidence

however, support does not this character- Willis, Appellant. Orlando ization of the facts. Brian Hill’s Walter 02-2992, 02-2994, No. 02-3147. of- was for a misdemeanor traffic Appeals, States Court United fense, inherently dangerous not an or vio- Eighth Circuit. lent crime. to the nature of war- Due rant, Department policy St. Paul Police 9, 2003. Submitted: June merely afforded the officers discretion to Filed: Nov. 2003. warrant; advise Hill of the were Rehearing Denied: Dec. words, required him. to arrest In other necessary, no arrest was and there was no

need quickly to act effectuate an arrest if finding out one was authorized.

Case Details

Case Name: Brian Arthur Hill v. Patrick Scott

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Date Published: Nov 14, 2003

Citation: 349 F.3d 1068

Docket Number: 02-3220

Court Abbreviation: 8th Cir.