Courtney Saunders v. Kyle Thies, individually and in his official capacity as a law enforcement officer for the Des Moines, IA Police Dept.; Clint Dee, individually and in his official capacity as a law enforcement officer for the Des Moines, IA Police Dept.; Dana Wingert, individually and in his official capacity as Chief of Police for the Des Moines, IA Police Dept.; City of Des Moines, Iowa
No. 21-2180
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
June 29, 2022
Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Central
Submitted: January 12, 2022
Filed: June 29, 2022
Before BENTON, SHEPHERD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
Following a traffic stop during which Courtney Saunders was cited for driving with an open liquor bottle in his car, Saunders filed suit against the Des Moines Police Department officers involved in the stop, Officers Kyle Thies and Clint Dee, as well as the City of Des Moines Chief of Police, Dana Wingert, and the City of Des Moines, alleging claims under state and federal law for violation of his constitutional rights. The district court1 granted summary judgment in favor of defendants and denied Saunders‘s request to certify questions to the Iowa Supreme Court and his motion for reconsideration. Having jurisdiction under
I.
This case arises from the traffic stop Officers Thies and Dee performed on Saunders, a 29-year-old black man, shortly after midnight on July 8, 2018. Thies and Dee were traveling in a police transport van, driven by Thies, when Thies observed a vehicle make what he described as an “abrupt” turn that “didn‘t feel right.” Despite the fact that they were in a police transport van, which is primarily used to transport individuals to the county jail, because the van did not have any individuals in it, Thies and Dee were acting in their general capacity as police officers. When serving in this capacity, Thies and Dee would periodically perform investigations or traffic stops. After observing the vehicle make the “abrupt” turn, Thies began following it; the vehicle ultimately made a right turn before coming to a stop on a residential street. Thies and Dee observed that the vehicle stopped directly in
Thies then made verbal contact with Saunders, the driver of the vehicle. Saunders had his driver‘s window lowered and was speaking on a cell phone. Thies did not immediately tell Saunders that he was parked illegally in front of a fire hydrant, instead asking Saunders if he was home. Saunders asked if there was a problem before responding that he was picking someone up from the residence he was parked in front of. Thies asked if the person he was picking up was coming out, and Saunders continued his phone call. While Thies waited as Saunders continued to talk on his phone, Thies heard a noise coming from the back of the vehicle and shined a flashlight into the backseat. Thies observed a small child in the back seat who was not in a booster seat,2 as well as a closed bottle of liquor with a broken seal. When Saunders again asked Thies if there was a problem, Thies responded that Saunders was parked in front of a fire hydrant, had an open liquor bottle in the vehicle, and had a child in the back of the car who was not secured in a booster seat. Saunders told Thies that the vehicle belonged to his girlfriend, the liquor bottle was not his, and that he was dropping off the child, noting that it was an emergency. Saunders again asked Thies if there was a problem, and Thies again listed the three infractions he had observed. Thies asked Saunders for his driver‘s license and explained that he was “being stopped now.” Saunders asked what he was being stopped for, and Thies again repeated the three infractions he had observed. Saunders replied that he was parked in front of a family member‘s house and stated that he already had an open case against the Des Moines Police Department for previous ill treatment that he had suffered from other officers. Thies again asked for Saunders‘s driver‘s license or identification, at which point Saunders produced his driver‘s license and his handgun permit. Saunders informed Thies that he had a handgun in the vehicle. Thies asked Saunders if he had been drinking, and Saunders stated that he had not.
Thies then asked Saunders to get out of the vehicle and walk to the back of the car. Thies told Saunders that he would not be placing Saunders in handcuffs and that Saunders “[wa]s not in any trouble,” before stating, however, that Saunders was being detained for the three listed infractions Thies observed: a vehicle parked illegally in front of a fire hydrant, an open liquor bottle in the vehicle, and a child not in a booster seat. Thies also stated that, because Saunders had a gun in the vehicle, the officers wanted to talk to Saunders at the back of the vehicle. Thies stated that they wished to question Saunders further about whether he had been drinking out of the open liquor bottle. Saunders got out of
When Thies returned from the van, he requested that Saunders submit to a field sobriety test; Saunders refused and stated that he would “rather blow,” presumably meaning that he would rather take a preliminary breath test (PBT). Thies informed Saunders that the officers did not have a PBT machine with them but did not immediately call for dispatch to send another officer with a PBT machine. Instead, Thies inspected the interior of Saunders‘s vehicle for signs of marijuana or alcohol use. Thies retrieved the bottle of liquor and took note of the handgun under the driver‘s seat before performing a general search of the rest of the open interior and the dashboard compartments. During this time, Saunders remained behind the vehicle with Dee. Saunders requested that Dee provide the badge numbers for both officers, which Dee agreed to do. Roughly two-and-a-half minutes after Saunders requested a PBT, Thies paused his search of the car, called dispatch, and requested that a PBT unit report to the scene. This was also when Thies reported the stop to dispatch for the first time. Thies then continued the search of Saunders‘s vehicle, again looked at the handgun under the driver‘s seat, and asked dispatch to run the serial number. After searching the car for signs of marijuana or liquor use and finding none, Thies returned to the transport van and began writing a citation for carrying an open liquor bottle.
While Thies was writing the citation, Dee asked Saunders if he had anything in his mouth; Saunders responded, “[W]hy would I have anything in my mouth?” When Dee attempted to explain that he was referring to chewing gum or chewing tobacco, Saunders told Dee not to talk to him. Saunders then voiced his opinion that he had been pulled over because of his race and the officers would not have approached his car if he had been white. Saunders then told Dee for a second time not to talk to him. After four-and-a-half minutes, a third officer arrived on the scene with a PBT unit, and, after obtaining Saunders‘s consent, performed the test. The results indicated that Saunders was not under the influence of alcohol. Upon conclusion of the test, Saunders asked Dee why the officers had initially walked up to his car; Dee responded that they approached the vehicle because Saunders was parked in front of a fire hydrant. Saunders also questioned why the transport van was following Saunders before he stopped, and Dee offered no explanation other than that the officers were just driving the transport van. By this point, Saunders‘s mother and brother had arrived on the scene. Thies engaged in a discussion with Saunders‘s brother about the age of
Saunders later filed this action in state court, alleging 11 claims against Thies, Dee, the City of Des Moines Chief of Police, Wingert, and the City of Des Moines. Against Thies and Dee, Saunders asserted claims under
In a single order, the district court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment in part and denied Saunders‘s motion to certify questions to the Iowa Supreme Court. As to the claims under both the federal and state constitutions for unreasonable search and seizure, the district court concluded that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity under both federal and state law because Saunders failed to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether an unreasonable search or seizure occurred when the undisputed facts showed that he voluntarily parked his vehicle, the officers observed him parked in front of a fire hydrant, Thies patted Saunders down after Saunders provided his handgun permit and stated that he had a firearm in the vehicle, and Thies had probable cause to search the vehicle based on the presence of the open liquor bottle. As to the claim under the federal constitution for unreasonable extension of a traffic stop, the district court determined that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that the failure to promptly request the assistance of another officer or the needed equipment before completing another task violated the Fourth Amendment. However, as to the analogous claim under the Iowa Constitution, the district court denied the officers qualified immunity, concluding that the Iowa qualified immunity analysis requires consideration of two questions: whether a constitutional violation occurred and whether the defendant took all reasonable actions to conform
As to the claims under the federal and state constitutions for racial profiling, the district court again determined that Thies and Dee were entitled to qualified immunity because Saunders failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Thies and Dee exercised their discretion to enforce a law solely on the basis of Saunders‘s race, particularly where there was no record evidence demonstrating that Thies and Dee were aware of Saunders‘s race when they began following his vehicle. As to the
As to the claims under both the federal and state constitutions against the Chief of Police and the City of Des Moines for deliberate indifference, the district court determined that, because Saunders failed to present any evidence of past violations of constitutional rights and failed to demonstrate that Saunders‘s encounter was a consequence of systemic failures, rather than the actions of individual officers, the Chief of Police and the City were entitled to summary judgment on these claims.
Finally, as to Saunders‘s request to certify questions to the Iowa Supreme Court regarding his claim under the Iowa Constitution for racial profiling, the district court denied the motion, concluding that its reasons for granting summary judgment to Thies and Dee on this count were unrelated to the proposed questions for the Iowa Supreme Court, rendering certification unnecessary. Saunders then filed a motion for reconsideration of his racial profiling claims, asserting that the district court applied an incorrect standard and incorrectly stated that the officers were not aware of Saunders‘s race before approaching his vehicle. Saunders also asserted that, should the district court correct its errors with respect to the state law racial profiling claim, it should also certify its question to the Iowa Supreme Court. The district court denied the motion. The district court then remanded the only remaining claims—the claims under the Iowa Constitution for unreasonable extension of a traffic stop and conspiracy—to state court. Saunders appeals.
II.
Saunders first asserts that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to defendants on his unreasonable seizure3 claims under both federal and state law, the unreasonably prolonged stop claim under federal law, the racial profiling claims under both federal and
As an initial matter, with respect to Saunders‘s federal claims against Thies and Dee, “[i]n determining whether qualified immunity should apply, the court engages in a two-step inquiry. First, we must determine whether a constitutional right has been violated. Then, ‘the court must decide whether the right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of defendant‘s alleged misconduct.‘” Ross, 897 F.3d at 920 (citations omitted). Although we may address either step first, it is “often beneficial” to address the steps in sequential order. Id. (citation omitted) Similarly, qualified immunity under Iowa law involves a two-step inquiry: first, whether a state constitutional right has been violated and, second, whether the defendant exercised all due care to conform to the requirements of state law. See Venckus v. City of Iowa City, 930 N.W.2d 792, 802 (Iowa 2019). “‘[E]xercising all due care to conform with the requirements of the law’ imposes a greater burden on defendants than not violating ‘clearly established . . . constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.‘” Baldwin v. Estherville, 333 F. Supp. 3d 817, 843 (N.D. Iowa 2018) (second alteration in original) (citing Baldwin v. City of Estherville, 915 N.W.2d 259, 279 (Iowa 2018)). With these frameworks in mind, we address each of Saunders‘s claims against Thies and Dee in turn.
A.
Saunders argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to Thies and Dee based on qualified immunity on his federal and state claims for an unreasonable seizure. Saunders asserts that the district court erred because fact questions exist regarding whether Thies and Dee unreasonably seized Saunders, particularly where the facts demonstrate that Thies and Dee seized Saunders from the moment they blocked his vehicle by pulling behind him on the residential street and they lacked reasonable suspicion to detain him.
“The Fourth Amendment protects against ‘unreasonable searches and seizures,’ and a traffic stop constitutes a seizure of the vehicle‘s occupants.” United States v. Sanchez, 955 F.3d 669, 674 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 930 (2020) (citations omitted). To comply with the Fourth Amendment, “a traffic stop must be justified by ‘reasonable suspicion . . . that criminal activity may be afoot.‘” Id. (alteration in original) (citation omitted). “Reasonable suspicion requires ‘a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity.‘” United States v. Shumaker, 21 F.4th 1007, 1017 (8th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted). Similarly,
First, to the extent that Saunders argues that he was seized from the moment the officers pulled up behind him after he turned on the residential street, we find his argument unavailing. The video recording of the incident shows that Saunders voluntarily stopped his car, Thies stopped the transport van several car lengths behind Saunders‘s vehicle, Thies never activated any sirens or lights, and Thies and Dee did not block Saunders‘s ability to leave prior to their initial verbal contact. On this record, we cannot conclude that Saunders was seized from the moment the officers pulled up behind him on the residential street. See Baude v. Leyshock, 23 F.4th 1065, 1071 (8th Cir. 2022) (“A Fourth Amendment seizure occurs when an officer restrains the liberty of an individual through physical force or show of authority[.]” (citation omitted)); State v. Reinders, 690 N.W.2d 78, 82 (Iowa 2004) (“A seizure occurs when an officer by means of physical force or show of authority in some way restrains the liberty of a citizen.” (citation omitted)).
Second, as to Saunders‘s argument that the stop was not supported by reasonable suspicion, we disagree. Under Iowa law, it is illegal to “stop, stand, or park a vehicle . . . [w]ithin five feet of a fire hydrant.”
B.
Saunders also argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to Thies and Dee based on qualified immunity on his federal claim for an unreasonably prolonged traffic stop. Saunders asserts that fact questions exist regarding whether Thies and Dee unreasonably
A traffic stop permissible under the Fourth Amendment “can become unlawful ‘if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete’ its purpose.” United States v. Peralez, 526 F.3d 1115, 1119 (8th Cir. 2008). In conducting a traffic stop, “an officer may detain the occupants of a vehicle . . . ‘while the officer completes a number of routine but somewhat time-consuming tasks related to the traffic violation.‘” United States v. Murillo-Salgado, 854 F.3d 407, 415 (8th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). These tasks may include checking the identification of the vehicle‘s occupants, including their criminal history, checking the vehicle‘s registration and insurance, preparing the traffic citation, and asking the occupants general questions about their “destination, route, and purpose.” Id. (citation omitted). Further, “[a]n officer‘s suspicion of criminal activity may reasonably grow over the course of a traffic stop as the circumstances unfold and more suspicious facts are uncovered.” United States v. Gastelum, 11 F.4th 898, 902 (8th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 2022 WL 1295716 (May 2, 2022). Determining whether the duration of a specific seizure is reasonable “is a fact-intensive question, and there is no per se time limit on all traffic stops. When there are complications in carrying out the traffic-related purposes of the stop, for example, police may reasonably detain a driver for a longer duration than when a stop is strictly routine.” United States v. Olivera-Mendez, 484 F.3d 505, 510 (8th Cir. 2007).
The district court resolved the officers’ entitlement to qualified immunity on the clearly established prong, concluding that it was not clearly established that the failure of an officer to promptly request the assistance of another officer or necessary equipment before conducting other stop-related tasks is an unreasonable extension of a seizure. As to the constitutional violation prong, the district court concluded that a reasonable jury could find that Thies‘s delay of roughly two-and-a-half minutes between when Saunders requested a PBT and when Thies called dispatch to request the equipment unreasonably prolonged the traffic stop. We disagree with this conclusion and find the constitutional violation prong dispositive of this claim.
As discussed with respect to Saunders‘s claim for unreasonable seizure, Thies and Dee had reasonable suspicion to initiate the traffic stop based on their observation of Saunders‘s vehicle parked in front of the fire hydrant. Then, once Thies and Dee began engaging in the routine tasks of the traffic stop, the record demonstrates that a reasonable basis existed for Thies and Dee‘s suspicions of criminal activity to grow, namely, Thies‘s observation of an open liquor bottle in the vehicle and the child in the backseat who was not secured in a booster seat. This provided the officers with the reasonable suspicion necessary to investigate these infractions, particularly whether Saunders was operating the vehicle under the influence. See Murillo-Salgado, 854 F.3d at 415-16 (concluding that officer developed reasonable suspicion to warrant further investigation of criminal activity unrelated to reasons for initial traffic stop based on observations officer made while carrying out routine tasks of stop). Because Thies and Dee developed reasonable suspicion that further criminal activity was afoot, it is of no moment that Thies and Dee did not ultimately cite
Regarding the two-and-a-half minutes between when Saunders requested the PBT and when Thies contacted dispatch to request a PBT machine, we conclude that this delay did not unreasonably extend the duration of the traffic stop. This time span was short in duration, and Thies continued to perform investigative tasks during this time. The stop was still ongoing; the request for the PBT machine did not extend an otherwise already concluded stop. Given the foregoing, the two-and-a-half minute period between when Saunders requested a PBT and when Thies contacted dispatch cannot alone support Saunders‘s claim that Thies and Dee unreasonably extended the duration of the traffic stop.
Finally, the entire duration of the traffic stop was roughly 22 minutes, and the video recordings demonstrate that the length of the traffic stop was, at least in part, based on the fact that Saunders was engaged in a phone conversation for a significant portion of the stop. See Olivera-Mendez, 484 F.3d at 510 (concluding that length of stop was not unreasonable and stating that routine “tasks took longer than normal because [the vehicle‘s driver] presented unusual circumstances“). Further, Thies and Dee concluded the traffic stop within five minutes after Saunders‘s PBT revealed that he was not under the influence of alcohol and immediately after Thies wrote the citation for traveling with an open liquor bottle in the vehicle. The video recording demonstrates that much of the five minutes between when the officers got the results of the PBT and concluded the stop was devoted to speaking to Saunders‘s family members who had arrived on the scene. Based on the facts and circumstances of this case, we conclude that Thies and Dee did not unreasonably extend the length of the traffic stop so as to amount to a violation of Saunders‘s Fourth Amendment rights. See Murillo-Salgado, 854 F.3d at 416 (concluding roughly 23-minute traffic stop was not unlawfully prolonged when officer asked permissible questions regarding purpose of trip and officer developed reasonable suspicion that further criminal activity was afoot based on occupants’ responses to questions and officer‘s observations during this time). Because Saunders failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Thies and Dee unreasonably prolonged the stop, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity to Thies and Dee on this claim.
C.
Next, Saunders asserts that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to Thies and Dee based on qualified immunity on his federal and state claims for racial profiling. Saunders contends that the district court erroneously construed the record to conclude that Thies and Dee were not aware of Saunders‘s race before they initiated the encounter. Saunders also argues that the district court erred by requiring him to prove that the officers exercised their discretion to enforce a law solely on the basis of his race, rather than requiring him to prove that it was only a motivating factor in Thies and Dee‘s decisions. Saunders finally asserts that the district court also erroneously denied his motion for reconsideration based on these errors.
Saunders asserts his racial profiling claims under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and
Saunders asserts that the record does not support the district court‘s determination that Thies and Dee were unaware of his race before they initiated the encounter with him by approaching his already stopped vehicle. Saunders asserts that, immediately before he made the turn that Thies deemed “abrupt” and which resulted in Thies following him, the transport van pulled up next to Saunders, and Thies made eye contact with him. However, this claim is immaterial to our analysis as Saunders‘s evidence of purportedly similarly situated comparators does not meet his burden of showing discriminatory effect and purpose because the comparators that he offers are not similarly situated “in all relevant respects.” Gilani, 843 F.3d at 348 (citation omitted) (concluding plaintiff and comparator offered to show selective enforcement were not similarly situated in all relevant respects because plaintiff matched description of a suspicious person report and no such report existed for comparator). Saunders offers body camera videos from five instances where Thies conducted traffic stops of black individuals and one instance where Thies conducted traffic stop of white individuals as his evidence of the “requisite discriminatory effect and purpose.” Clark, 926 F.3d at 980 (citation omitted). Although these videos perhaps demonstrate a general sense of how Thies treats motorists, none of these individuals are similarly situated to Saunders in all relevant respects. In each of these instances, Thies initiated a traffic stop of a moving vehicle, activated his lights, and did not issue a citation. Further, each of the instances differed in their circumstances, the questioning of the vehicle‘s occupants, and the investigation of different violations or offenses. These traffic stops differ from Saunders‘s stop to such an extent that they cannot be used as evidence of similarly situated comparators.
Finally, Saunders argues that the district court erred by applying an incorrect standard to his claim by requiring him to prove that Thies and Dee were motivated solely by race, rather than proving that they were motivated in part by race. Compare Clark, 926 F.3d at 980 (“To prove an equal protection claim in the context of a police interaction, [a plaintiff] must prove that the officer exercised his discretion to enforce a law solely on the basis of race.” (emphasis added)), with United States v. Bell, 86 F.3d 820, 823 (8th Cir. 1996) (“To
D.
Saunders further argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to Thies and Dee based on qualified immunity on Saunders‘s
E.
Finally, Saunders asserts that the district court erred in granting summary
As to the federal claim for deliberate indifference, our “circuit has consistently recognized a general rule that, in order for municipal liability to attach, individual liability first must be found on an underlying substantive claim. Similarly, to maintain an action for training or supervisory liability, a plaintiff must show the failure to train or supervise caused the injury.” Moore v. City of Desloge, 647 F.3d 841, 849 (8th Cir. 2011). Because Saunders failed to show that Thies and Dee violated his constitutional rights, Saunders cannot maintain this claim against either the City or the Chief of Police. See id.
Although Saunders‘s federal claim is resolved by the absence of an underlying violation of his federal constitutional rights, the analysis of his analogous claim under the Iowa Constitution requires additional consideration because the district court determined that Saunders‘s claims under the Iowa Constitution for unreasonable extension of the stop and conspiracy survived summary judgment. Therefore, Saunders‘s claim under the Iowa Constitution does not fail for the lack of a viable, underlying substantive claim.
The parties have not presented any authority, nor have we discovered any, suggesting that Iowa courts would interpret a deliberate indifference claim under the Iowa Constitution any differently than federal courts would under federal law. Accordingly, we apply federal law to Saunders‘s claim under the Iowa Constitution. See Feregrino, 756 N.W.2d at 703 n.1 Under federal standards, “[a] municipality may be liable under
Saunders‘s evidence of the purported deliberate indifference of both the City and the Chief of Police falls far short of this standard; Saunders has presented no evidence of past violations of the rights in question, nor has he presented evidence that the facts of the traffic stop were “so obviously” the consequence of a systemic lack of training or supervision so as to amount to deliberate indifference to unconstitutional
III.
Saunders further asserts that the district court erred in declining to certify questions to the Iowa Supreme Court regarding his claim under the Iowa Constitution for racial profiling. “We review a district court‘s decision regarding whether to certify a question of law to the appropriate state court under the abuse of discretion standard.” Anderson v. Hess Corp., 649 F.3d 891, 895 (8th Cir. 2011).
And, as stated above, we similarly review the denial of a motion for reconsideration for abuse of discretion. SPV-LS, LLC, 912 F.3d at 1111.
The decision whether to certify a question to a state supreme court “is by no means ‘obligatory’ merely because state law is unsettled; the choice instead rests ‘in the sound discretion of the federal court.‘” McKesson v. Doe, 141 S. Ct. 48, 51 (2020) (per curiam). As the Supreme Court has cautioned, “state certification procedures can prolong the dispute and increase the expenses incurred by the parties,” and “[o]ur system of ‘cooperative judicial federalism’ presumes federal and state courts alike are competent to apply federal and state law.” Id.
Saunders sought to certify the following questions to the Iowa Supreme Court regarding his racial profiling claim, which was rooted in the Equal Protection Clause of the Iowa Constitution:
- What are the standards for a racially-biased policing claim under the Iowa Equal Protection Clause?
- When there is evidence showing that an officer pretextually engaged the plaintiff after considering his race, and that the officer has a pattern of illegally stopping others of the same race, must a plaintiff bringing a racially-biased policing claim under the Iowa Equal Protection Clause also produce evidence showing that similarly
situated individuals of a different race were not treated the same?
We agree with the district court that the answers to these questions are unnecessary to resolve Saunders‘s racial profiling claim. Relying on sources he claims suggest the Iowa Constitution may provide a more lenient standard for equal protection claims than the federal constitution, Saunders asserts that, to correctly consider his claim, the Iowa Supreme Court must weigh in on the proper standards for evaluating such a claim. However, the Iowa Supreme Court has previously stated that “prudential concerns ordinarily mean that where an argument that the Iowa Constitution should be construed differently than the United States Constitution is not presented, we assume for the purposes of the case that the provisions should be interpreted in an identical fashion.” Feregrino, 756 N.W.2d at 703 n.1. Given this “assumption” that the federal and state constitutions should be interpreted in “an identical fashion,” and given the deferential standard of review that applies to review of a motion to certify questions to a state court, we see no error in the district court‘s denial of this motion. For these reasons, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Saunders‘s motion to certify questions to the Iowa Supreme Court or in denying Saunders‘s subsequent motion to reconsider.
IV.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court.