Christopher STONER, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Eugene WATLINGTEN, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Deputy Sheriff, St. Francis County, Arkansas, Defendant-Appellant Scott Melton; Bobby May; John Does; Tommy Watlingten; Christopher Reynolds, Defendants.
No. 12-3383
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
Submitted: Sept. 24, 2013. Filed: Nov. 7, 2013.
735 F.3d 799
Michael R. Rainwater, and Jason E. Owens, Little Rock, AR, for appellant.
Bryan R. Huffman, Covington, TN, for appellee.
Before RILEY, Chief Judge, BRIGHT and BYE, Circuit Judges.
BRIGHT, Circuit Judge.
I. Background
A. Facts2
On May 25, 2010, Stoner rode as a passenger in a car with Oklahoma license plates traveling on Interstate 40 in Arkansas. Stoner‘s wife was driving. In St. Francis County, Watlingten, a deputy sheriff, initiated a traffic stop. The legal basis for the stop is not at issue in this appeal.
After Stoner‘s wife pulled to the shoulder, Watlingten approached the car and asked Stoner and his wife to produce identification. They complied. Stoner informed Watlingten that he and his family were traveling through Arkansas and did not live within the state. In response to Watlingten‘s questioning, Stoner explained that he was an ammunition salesman. Watlingten asked if any firearms or ammunition were inside the car. Stoner admitted that there was a 9-millimeter handgun, a .22 caliber pistol, and an AK-47 in the trunk, along with some ammunition. Watlingten asked Stoner to show him the firearms. Without objection, Stoner removed the firearms from a guitar case in the trunk and showed them to Watlingten.
Two factual disputes relevant to this appeal exist between the parties: first, whether the firearms were loaded at the time Stoner removed them from the trunk; and second, the location of the firearms in the trunk. Stoner admits that the clips for the firearms were loaded, but claims that the clips were stored separately from the firearms. In contrast, Watlingten claims that the AK-47 and the 9-millimeter handgun were loaded and that the AK-47 contained a round in its chamber. As to the location of the firearms in the trunk, Stoner testified that firearms were stored in a guitar case that was underneath much of his family‘s luggage and that he had to pull out the luggage in order to gain access to the case. However, Watlingten testified that the guitar case was “[s]itting on top of [Stoner‘s] luggage” in the trunk.
After Stoner removed the firearms from the guitar case, additional officers arrived at the scene. Watlingten subsequently arrested Stoner for violating
A person commits the offense of carrying a weapon if he or she possesses a handgun, knife, or club on or about his or her person, in a vehicle occupied by him or her, or otherwise readily available for use with a purpose to employ
the handgun, knife, or club as a weapon against a person.
Watlingten transported Stoner to the St. Francis County Jail and booked him at approximately 2:30 p.m. Stoner was released in less than four hours. After Stoner‘s release, the deputy prosecuting attorney chose not to pursue the charges, reasoning that Stoner had a valid defense because he was on a journey at the time he was cited.3
B. Procedural History
Stoner brought this civil rights action pursuant to
The district court granted summary judgment of dismissal as to all claims except Stoner‘s false arrest claim against Watlingten. On the false arrest claim, the district court denied summary judgment on the ground that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether Watlingten had probable cause to believe that Stoner possessed the firearms “with a purpose to employ [them] against another person” given that the parties disputed whether the firearms were loaded. Given this issue of fact, the district court also concluded that Watlingten was not entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity.
Watlingten appeals the denial of summary judgment on the basis that he is entitled to qualified immunity on Stoner‘s false arrest claim.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
“Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party presents no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Coates v. Powell, 639 F.3d 471, 475 (8th Cir. 2011). We review “de novo a denial of summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity.” Small v. McCrystal, 708 F.3d 997, 1003 (8th Cir. 2013). For the purposes of our review, we “accept[] as true the facts that the district court specifically found were adequately supported” in addition to the facts that the district court likely assumed. Lockridge v. Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Ark., 315 F.3d 1005, 1008 (8th Cir. 2003). The scope of our interlocutory review, however, is limited to the issue of qualified immunity, and we may not consider summary judgment on the merits of the case at this stage. Mettler, 165 F.3d at 1202; see Collins v. Bellinghausen, 153 F.3d 591, 595 (8th Cir. 1998).
B. Qualified Immunity
The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). In reviewing the district court‘s denial of summary judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity, we engage in a two-part inquiry. We may first determine whether the officer‘s conduct violated a constitutional right. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001), overruled in part by Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 242, 129 S.Ct. 808, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009) (holding Saucier‘s two-step sequence is not mandatory). If so, we next consider whether that right was clearly established at the time of the misconduct. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151.
As to the first inquiry, the district court concluded that there was a factual dispute as to whether Watlingten had probable cause to arrest Stoner. Because the parties dispute whether the firearms were loaded at the time they were removed from the trunk, the district court reasoned that a genuine issue of material fact remained “as to whether Watlingten had any reason to believe that Stoner possessed the weapons ‘with a purpose to employ’ them ‘against another person,‘” which the district court impliedly concluded was an essential element of
We agree with the district court that the facts, when taken in the light most favorable to Stoner, show that Watlingten violated Stoner‘s constitutional right by arresting him without probable cause. See Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201-02, 121 S.Ct. 2151. “The Fourth Amendment includes the right to be free from arrest without probable cause.” Lambert v. City of Dumas, 187 F.3d 931, 935 (8th Cir. 1999). Probable cause is determined based upon “the objective facts available to the officers at the time of the arrest.” Sheets v. Butera, 389 F.3d 772, 777 (8th Cir. 2004). It “exists if the totality of facts based on reasonably trustworthy information would justify a prudent person in believing the individual arrested had committed ... an offense at the time of the arrest.” Smithson v. Aldrich, 235 F.3d 1058, 1062 (8th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). As we have observed, Stoner testified that the firearms were not loaded and were stored underneath his luggage at the bottom of the trunk. Assuming, as we must, that these facts are true, a prudent officer would not be justified in believing that Stoner possessed the firearms “with a purpose to employ [them] against a person.”4 See McGuire v. State, 265 Ark. 621, 580 S.W.2d 198, 200 (1979) (“There is a presumption that a loaded pistol is placed in a car as a weapon.” (emphasis added)).
Next, we must consider whether Stoner‘s right to be free from arrest was clearly established at the time Watlingten arrested him. See Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201-02, 121 S.Ct. 2151. “In determining whether the legal right at issue is clearly established, this circuit applies a flexible standard, requiring some, but not precise factual correspondence with precedent, and demanding that officials apply general, well-developed legal principles.” J.H.H. v. O‘Hara, 878 F.2d 240, 243 (8th Cir. 1989) (citation omitted). We assess the objective reasonableness of the action “in light of clearly established law and the information the officers possessed.”
“The Fourth Amendment right of citizens not to be arrested without probable cause is indeed clearly established.” Kuehl v. Burtis, 173 F.3d 646, 649 (8th Cir. 1999). However, Watlingten argues that even if his conduct violated a constitutional right, he is nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity because
For context, we repeat the specific language of
A person commits the offense of carrying a weapon if he or she possesses a handgun, knife, or club on or about his or her person, in a vehicle occupied by him or her, or otherwise readily available for use with a purpose to employ the handgun, knife, or club as a weapon against a person.
Watlingten contends that the statutory language “with a purpose to employ the handgun, knife, or club as a weapon against a person” only applies to the third scenario addressed in the statute: situations in which the weapon is “otherwise readily available for use.” Watlingten argues that a person violates
In opposition, Stoner contends that in order to violate
On at least three occasions, the Arkansas Supreme Court has stated a person must have “a purpose to employ the handgun, knife, or club, as a weapon against a person” in order to violate
III. Conclusion
Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Stoner, a fact-finder could determine that Watlingten (1) violated a constitutional right belonging to Stoner that was (2) clearly established at the time of the violation. Accordingly, the district court properly denied summary judgment of dismissal to appellant Watlingten on the false arrest claim. See Greiner v. City of Champlin, 27 F.3d 1346, 1352 (8th Cir. 1994) (“[I]f there is a genuine dispute concerning predicate facts material to the qualified immunity issue, there can be no summary judgment.“). Therefore, we affirm.