Rustici v. Weidemeyer

(Lexington, Lexington Mass.: Law

Books, 1977). judicio-political

I no taste for sub- in-

jectivism. impose It serves to “WILL Federalist,

stead JUDGMENT.” ' No. 78. respectfully

I dissent. RUSTIO, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant,

John WEIDEMEYER, al.,

Richard et

Defendants-Respondents.

No. 65672. Missouri,

Supreme Court of

En Banc.

June 1984. Rehearing July

On 1984. petition for arrest and

fendants false arising prosecution out of the malicious nonpayment parking vio- issuance and shopping center lot. lation on filed suit false Plaintiff against two officers on force, employed one whom security guard during off-duty private Shopping by the Metro North Cen- hours The action for false arrest included ter. shopping In his the owners of center. action, plaintiff comprehensive cause of guard shop- charged security prosecu- ping center officers with malicious The asserted a claim tion. suit further (1976) against under U.S.C. City of Kansas police two officers and deprivation rights. alleged of civil City for granted mo- trial court defendants’ The verdict, appeal, and on tion for directed Appeals of the Court of Western District granted transfer. affirmed. This court Considering original appeal, case an as 83.09, part affirm in and reverse Rule we part. outset, specifically it

At the should be necessity case on the noted that this turns by municipal police officer of a warrant making jurisdiction an arrest outside his municipal parking of a ordi- for a violation under the circumstances nance holding of primary this presented. The municipal ordinance deals to such. pertaining violation and presented question panoramic appeal is whether the trial court this directing in favor of a verdict erred plaintiff’s the close evi defendants at It this must dence. follows that Court Miller, Kansas Dougherty, Spencer G. Ed all the reason evidence and consider the plaintiff-appellant. City, for light therefrom the most able inferences Smith, Welsh, determine plaintiff in order to Aaron James favorable Kenneth 0. plaintiff a submissible case Wilson, Bradley, Jeffrey made Michael whether A. W. any any Williams, of the defendants Hess, Thomas B. William Randall Maier, petition. in his Na presented Sullivan, III, City, Kansas the theories Manfred Paris, City v.Co. defendants-respondents. tional Garment for (Mo. banc GUNN, Judge. re- as the came about Plaintiff’s arrest off- parking ticket issued of a the trial sult appeals from Plaintiff-appellant officer, He- City police Steven Kansas duty all de- in favor of directed verdict court’s working unpaid as a that ticket has remained for a cer- bauf. Hebauf was length tain of time. security guard Shopping for Metro North Center, issuing duties included tick- and his September by happenstance On illegally parked vehicles which were ets to police officers were called to in- blocking fire such ticket was lanes. One vestigate some Mr. acts of vandalism at to a two-door April issued on Rustici’s house. routine check revealed ticket, He- On face of the Chevrolet. police to Gladstone that John Rustici was description of the vehi- bauf wrote down subject cle, number, tag including the license violation, unpaid parking and as the number of ordinance well of that was informed fact. The Gladstone violated. Plaintiff does con- had been City police, contacted the Kansas any erro- of this information was Weidemeyer, tend Richard a Kansas defendant neous, large officer, he does base his case in City police dispatched was to the arrival, Upon Weidemeyer’s plain- fact that Hebauf did not measure on the scene. him tiff informed that a mistake had been fill the name owner of vehicle. made, fitting that he did not drive a car operating procedure, Under standard description on the ticket and that case, copy presumably followed he his son bore the same name. The ticket left on the vehicle and anoth- any did not talk to other member of to the Kansas munic- copy er was sent family but did check to deter- There, ipal employees of the Court court. the warrant was issued to a mine that John attempted Administrator’s office to dis- in 1924. Rustici born the name of the owner of the vehicle cover City Mr. Rustici was taken to a Kansas computer through of the records a search posted a police station where he $25.00 Department Two such of the of Revenue. appearance released. The bond and was made, attempts of which were were both dismissed, ultimately against case him was subsequent in- unproductive. brought and he this action. in North quiry to the motor vehicle bureau City successful. On the Kansas was more petition is in Plaintiff’s second amended office, supplied by of information that basis I asserts a claim of three counts. Count name Rustici” and the address the “John shop- the against the owners of false arrest Cowden, Gladstone, Mo.” were “1103 N.E. City police ping center and the two Kansas All the information added to the ticket. of officers, Weidemeyer. Count Hebauf and placed in the pertinent to the ticket was malicious II a cause of action for pleads computer municipal the court. files of defendants. against the same prosecution police III to hold the two offi- Count seeks computer the records of the check of city liable for and the of cers Department prior to trial re- of Revenue rights civil depriving plaintiff of his having the vealed two licensed drivers § 1983, supra. The trial court directed a Rustici, in one born 1924 and name John plaintiff’s case in the close of verdict at born in 1959. The two Rusticis the other on all counts. of all defendants favor son, father and and each resided were address. These com- the same Gladstone point, plaintiff con preliminary aAs puter comput- records were available to the directing trial court erred tends that the Municipal Court Adminis- er section of the center shopping of the a verdict favor office, employees (Hebauf) trator’s and one em and the officer owners III, argu entered “1924” I apparently that section them on ployed by Counts request of the John failed to computer as the birthdate these defendants ing the parking ticket. The in their motion. named in the on those counts Rustici a verdict plaintiff for municipal authority court cited computer employed by the The 72.01, which states automatically generate proposition is Rule programmed to this for direct pertinent part that motion has issued entry stating that a warrant “[a] specific grounds the ed verdict shall state given parking ticket when respect to a with Nothing prohib- in Rule 72.01 made the officer.” Greaves v. Kansas therefore.” entering Co., Mo.App. Orpheum trial court from directed its a Junior it is accord, without motion when merited. (1935); verdict to authority of trial courts direct a The Co., Kresge 291 S.W. v. S.S. Vimont material where there is no issue verdict (Mo.App.1927). part “is jury for the to decide fact court, which is power inherent such a is more com While rule determining ques- charged duty to the of wheth monly question addressed Trust of the law.” Home Co. tions insti rose the level of er certain conduct Josephson, 339 Mo. within gation, there is the statement (banc 1936). general The rule person may rule: a not be germ of another “may, court in a follow is a trial we stating the held truth to one who liable case, proper direct a verdict its own ultimately arrest. See effects another’s any request hav- instance without therefor better, There can be no nor more Vimont. C.J.S., ing party.” made either been alleged complete justification for someone Trial instigator of an arrest than that to be the merits, case, respect con- With truth. simply he told the In this that a submissible case false ar- tends (Hebauf) who the ticket did issued against shopping made center rest was description of report no a true more than employed by and the officer them. owners pow illegally parked car those whose is, course, founded on Plaintiffs the in authority er and it was to enforce of the parking effect that issuance respon party properly fraction had on the of his ultimate ar- ticket fact offending identify did not sible. He places emphasis rest. Plaintiff much party, certainly attempt and he did argument the issuance the ticket distinguish the elder Rustici from “instigate” that arrest. served How- Nothing plaintiffs younger. evidence ever, argument is misdirected. acts detracts from this that the conclusion justifiable were and that Officer Hebauf the cause of action essence of liability. he bears no arrest, imprisonment, of false or false “is confinement, legal justification, without issuing that if It follows the officer wrongdoer person wronged.” by the of the arrest, for then the ticket is not liable false 670, Parrish, v. 436 S.W.2d 672 Warrem are clearly employers are his who neither (Mo.1969); Patrick v. Menorah Medical theory sought held liable under the to be 134,138 Center, (Mo.App.1982). 636 S.W.2d Hill, 443 respondeat superior. Lynch v. may also person be liable for false arrest (Mo.1969); Vaughn 818 v. S.W.2d plaintiff actually not confine the if he does Co., 33 & Sears Roebuck it, merely instigates in the as case of but (Mo.App.1982). on the basis of which providing information subsequent unlawful arrest made. Closely related claim plaintiffs See, Supermarkets, e.g., Smith v. Allied against arrest is these defendants for false (Mo. 1975); Inc., 524 S.W.2d 848 banc Sni prose them against his claim for malicious 491, 209 Wimberly, 357 Mo. der v. S.W.2d a cause of Among cution. the elements of (1948). justification is a com 239 de prosecution is that action malicious for action, plete defense the cause (or continued) prosecu fendant initiated equally to the applies as well Prosser, probable W. tion without cause. instigates merely an arrest as to one who § (4th Torts, ed. at 841 Law actually it. the former effectuates who arrest, is no liabili false there Like mere it has been held that one context “[i]f re ty prosecution for based officer, malicious leaving it the facts to ly states Lamberg, porting the truth. See Pride superior they or not his to act as to him or (Mo.1963). fit, for a false arrest he is liable see recited, Under the facts plaintiff transported arrested and plaintiff was against made no case Officer Hebauf or along liable trooper with the im- false shopping employers. center prisonment. stated, As the court there “all persons directly procure, aid, abet, who or point urges Plaintiff’s fourth that a sub- imprisonment assist in an unlawful are lia- missible case of false arrest made was principals.” Id., ble as quoting Hines v. Weidemeyer. Officer Plaintiff con- Co., Fireman’s Fund Ins. 235 S.W. by Weidemey- tends that his arrest Officer (Mo.App.1921). It was earlier stated following er was unlawful three re- that, though plaintiff may even first, spects: that the arrest was without been arrested without the defendant’s warrant, computer-generated since the en- consent, knowledge “yet if illegal try precipitated his arrest was not by restraint continue and with the di- judge issued under the hand of a or clerk rection, advice and assistance of par- such Municipal Court accordance with ty, then he imprison- is liable for false 37.10; second, Rule plaintiffs arrest Rouse, ment.” Monson v. Mo.App. City police was effectuated a Kansas (1900). Weidemeyer Even if served as officer in jurisdiction; a location outside his jailer, jailer no more than a is liable for third, Weidemeyer that Officer failed imprisonment false if he knows or should precautions to take reasonable to avoid a illegal know that an arrest was and that he identity. mistake in Presumably, incipi- right imprison has no arrest- illegality plaintiffs ent arrest under this Am.Jur.2d, Imprisonment, ed. 32 False theory plaintiff latter was not the party properly responsible for the citation. unlawful, If arrest was Weidemeyer Defendant contends that there is no doubt summary disposition proper, as to him was fully apprised was of the circumstances actually in that he plaintiff did not “arrest” so, subsequent rendered it and his merely transported following him plaintiff detention of would therefore be as arrest officers. Weide- maculated as would have been initial meyer furthér contends that his restraint him. plaintiff auspices comput- point Defendant’s requires second lawful, er-general warrant was in that such judges little discussion. The of the Munici procedure approved by judges has been pal Division of the Sixteenth Judicial Cir Municipal Division of the Sixteenth empowered adopt proce cuit are not argues He Judicial Circuit. that he is dures which an arrest that will validate liability by shielded from the doctrine of It otherwise unlawful. is therefore irrele sovereign immunity. As a final defensive vant that the manner which revetment, he contends that a directed ver- arrested, based on transmitted information proper, dict in his favor was based on the warrant, regarding computer-generated a principle arresting may just- that an officer approved by Municipal was Court. ifiably rely on a warrant which is valid on its face. point Defendant’s third is also response

In Weide- Although without merit. Officer Weide- contention, meyer’s meyer protection sovereign first it is of no moment claims the person actually immunity, uniquely applica whether he was the first principle plaintiffs effect whether governmental arrest or he ble to entities and is not merely plaintiff following detained his ar agent entity. transferrable to an by rest officers. In City, Newson v. 606 Herron, 1156, 487, Mo.App. (Mo.App.1980); v. 240 225 see Parrish S.W.2d 490 Ellisville, 391, (1949), 399 it was held that a v. 650 S.W.2d Oberkramer 286, present (Mo.App.1983)(sovereign deputy sheriff’s who was while S.W.2d 294 interrogated, protected by immunity). pub-A Highway state Patrol officer official

769 officer, however, officer, arresting lie immuni- executing has official when a war ty liability discretionary from invalid, acts or rant that is later determined to be performed functions in the exercise of offi- may justified making nevertheless be in Oberkramer, 295; Newson, cial duties. at arrest if the warrant is “fair and valid on 490; Wilson, 39, at v. 581 S.W.2d Mulvihill, Jackson Wehmeyer its face.” v. Mo. 150 (Mo.App.1979). 42 681, 197, (1910); accord, App. 130 S.W. Mitchell, Zeitinger v. case, then, present The issue (Mo. logical first corollary to the is whether conduct of yet by unaddressed Missouri principle, sought by plaintiffs peti to be redressed courts, officer, arresting is that an in a tion so cloaked official discretion was identity, may justifiably mistaken case of plaintiff may not recover as a matter rely description on a contained a warrant determining of law. The test for the dis which he is directed to execute unless he cretionary nature of an act is whether that person has reason to know that the arrest necessarily requires act “the exercise of subject ed was not intended to be the adaption end, reason in the of means to an Annot., that warrant. See 127 A.L.R. determining discretion how or (1940); (1950). 10 A.L.R.2d whether an act should done or a course be Jackson, C.J.S., pursued.” citing principle The if second is that Municipal Corporations, empowered officer is to make an arrest contrast, function, a ministerial warrant, without a the arrest of an inno immune, exercise which is not is one “of person may justified by cent be the offi a clerical nature public which a officer is cer’s reasonable belief that the required perform upon given state of guilty offense for he of the was facts, manner, prescribed in a in obedience Wehmeyer, arrested. 130 S.W.2d at 684. legal authority, to the mandate of without applying principles Before these regard judgment opinion to his own con- hand, necessary the case at it is to isolate cerning propriety per- the act to be the two claimed infirmities in Jackson, 43; accord, formed.” Yelton plaintiff arrest. The first is that was mis Becker, (Mo.App.1952). takenly identified as the ar whose appreciation With all due practical sought. infirmity may truly rest .was This difficulties application encountered by said to cured reliance be officer’s distinction, of this it is nevertheless diffi- directly on information which identified cult to conceive of an act which is more plaintiff and which he had no reason law, susceptible circumscribed and less infirmity disbelieve. The second initiative, to individual than is the arrest of arrested was without a warrant peace very a citizen officer. At the under circumstances which a warrant least, plaintiff’s gives evidence rise to a required. premises If these two are reasonable inference that the acts of Weid- true, belief, mere then the officer’s based emeyer complained that are of are ministe- information, upon second-hand that a valid rial and therefore not shielded official justify warrant existed will not the arrest. Newson, immunity. See at 491. follows, regardless This conclusion substance defendant reliability apparent of that information. Weidemeyer’s fourth contention is that an conclusion, In order to reach this may successfully defend however, by showing premises claim of false arrest that he the on which it is based turn, first, reasonably making proven. acted in the arrest and The in must be required that the reasonableness of defendant’s ac arrest a warrant. It is general in the instant rule that for an arrest tions case are established as the be lawful, argument suggested in a a matter of law. The it must be execution of valid warrant; however, actually “may attempted synthesis is of two an officer arrest person he has principles. any distinct The first is that an without a warrant whom unknown, to believe any reasonable cause has committed or her name is or name felony anyone misde committing a a description by the accused can be presence.” meanor his Kansas certainty. identified with reasonable It Mathis, (Mo.App. 286-87 charged shall describe the offense in the requirement warrant is complaint or information. If such war- subject exceptions, statutory certain rant is issued under the the hand of pertinent none of which is here. sealed, judge, it not if is need be it issued under the hand of clerk of the the 544.215, Section RSMo autho court, court, the seal of the if such court police municipalities rizes officers of St. seal, has an official shall attached County, County police Louis Louis St. thereto. Joseph City police any St. to “arrest [they whom reasonable cause to be have] the Plaintiff’s evidence described committing lieve is or has committed a operating procedure Kan standard of the 84.710, misdemeanor.” RSMo Section City Municipal sas Division to un relative 1978, empowers police officers in Kansas paid parking After a tick tickets. any person they “whom unpaid length et remains for a having any to suspect reason violated time, computer programmed gener a is city.” law of the or the state ordinance of ate a notation that a warrant has issued exists, power however, only That within respect then to it. This information is city public itself property or on person made available to law enforcement city beyond corporate its limits. addi nel. The evidence also shows that both tion, 544.216, Cum.Supp.1983, RSMo ef police and Officer Gladstone September fective authorizes concerning relied on information radio municipal po sheriffs officers and certain they when arrested existence warrant any person lice officers to arrest whom plaintiff. reasonable inference from this they have cause to “has reasonable believe is in the evidence that “warrant” any over of violated ordinance which such no a present case was fact more than jurisdiction.” ficer has None of these sec calendaring device to remind the court tions authorized either clerk that a should be issued. It is City police or the to effect a war- certainly entry clear that such an does not 23, 1979, in September rantless arrest on municipal either or a require judge court Gladstone, Missouri, based on reasonable give clerk to even the briefest atten court suspicion that the arrested has vio in a tion to whether a warrant should issue municipal lated a ordinance. might given light facts which premise The second to be is considered Rule justify exist to its issuance. then arrested a war- without contemplates at the 37.10 such attendance case, plaintiff In the made a present rant. Furthermore, it seems of issuance. time showing prima arrest was facie 37.10, in the absence clear Rule accomplished auspices not under the authority con specific more to the other This dictated valid warrant. conclusion is contemplates a ca trary, written document 37.10, governing Rule the issuance signed being or sealed. See pable of either in traffic cases. Rule 37.10 warrants § 544.180, also, requiring that RSMo states, full, follows: arresting must show warrant upon complaint Any warrant issued he under which acts. charging or the commission information premises Having concluded that two may of an offense be issued under true, it to be to above are remains referred issuing of the court judge hand of the officer, arresting in such that an same, if shown or of clerk thereof authoriz- circumstances, rely on law, may justifiably complaint informa- if the ed applicable that an second-hand information prosecutor. It shall tion filed or, pecu- if Our conclusion his warrant existed. contain name of accused liarly by informed the circum- possessory is therefore not covered the exemption stances of this case. in Rule 37.12. exemption, Without such an the 37.12, pertaining to certain Rule general possess rule is that an officer must warrants, municipal traffic states that an validly the warrant in order to execute it. executing officer such a warrant “need not Scurlock, Missouri, J. Arrest in 29 U.M. possession the in his warrant the Fisher, (1961); Law Rev. E. K.C. upon request time of his arrest he shall but Arrest, Laws show the warrant to the accused as soon as recognized by requirements This rule is possible.” language appears Similar in the § 544.180, arresting in that an offi supra, to warrants for misdemean rules relative cer “must inform the defendant what (Rule 21.08) (Rule and for ors felonies 22.- acts, authority he and must also show if, certainly It follows that under the prerequi if required.”2 warrant clear circumstances,

present arresting offi ability display site to the officer’s to possessed cer need not have the warrant in person being warrant to a arrested is the it, validly order to execute then the officer possession officer’s of that warrant.3 justified relying would have been on a arresting plaintiff radio communication to the officer the effect that a Since case, required possession valid warrant existed.1 In that the was be warrant, Weidemeyer neither nor validity” rule of “facial Officer referred to above police justifiably the Gladstone could have could extended be to include “second-hand appearance authority relied on the validity.” facial Such an arrest would have first-hand, arrest which did not result from every appearance sanction, legal long so possessory knowledge of that document. upon as it was based a reasonable belief Weidemeyer’s It follows that Officer con proper that a charging plain warrant duct, it whether constituted arrest or tiff had been issued. if the offi detention, merely continued did not consti required cer was to have the warrant in his justifiable imprisonment tute as a matter possession, it cannot be said that reliance of law. We therefore conclude that hearsay on information of the warrant’s directing trial court erred in a verdict in provides existence necessary justifica Weidemeyer plain favor of defendant tion. A closer examination of Rule 37.12 tiff’s claim of false arrest. general and of the law of arrest results in the conclusion that was indeed Despite submissibility required possess the warrant. plaintiff’s cause of action for false arrest 37.12, terms, Rule apply against Weidemeyer, its does not we must to warrants “issued under Rule 37.48.” nevertheless conclude that the trial court rule, turn, applies disposed That is- properly plaintiff's warrants claim for appear punitive damages. puni sued for failure to and answer a In order to award ticket, arrest, including damages traffic ticket. case of tive false jury only Id. The in the instant case must find that the defendant not precisely within the ambit of that rule and intended the confinement knew it to noting provisions right 1. It bears that the of Rule officer had the to arrest defendant even if justified non-possessory brought 37.12 would have ar- the officer had not the warrant with actually rest by if the arrest had effected been holding him at the time of the arrest. The rule, officers since that un- question properly this case is confined to the 37.48, permits like Rule the execution of war- justify the circumstances which resistance only by police jurisdictions rants officers of arrest. they are in which executed. holding, we have no occasion 3.In view of our Bateswell, 2. Mo. 16 S.W. In State v. possession the more lenient to decide whether (1891), approved this Court an instruc- provision prevails Rule 37.12 over the statuto- arresting prosecution tion in a for assault on an ry edict. jury to find that the allowed 772 it occurred. The same cannot concluded

unlawful at the time Dorris v. be 326, (Mo.App. Weidemeyer. 328 Zayre Corp., respect 619 S.W.2d with to Officer 1981). imply knowledge, such law will Plaintiff at least made a submissible has however, the defendant acts with (or detention) where his arrest that that disregard reckless or conscious indiffer opinion unlawful. In af officer was its of rights or interests another. court, ence of firming trial Dis the Western Corp., v. Beggs Universal C.I.T. Credit Weidemeyer’s trict concluded that Officer 719, (Mo.1966); 409 S.W.2d 723 Pashalian most, negligence at conduct amounted 628, Co., 348 Big-4 v. Chevrolet negligence support could and that not case, (Mo.App.1961). present 637 § action under 1983. While some confu nothing plaintiff’s is evidence there time, it point on this at one sion existed suggests Weidemeyer which that Officer § appears now settled that 1983 does not concerning any had conscious doubt require deprivation complained of that arrest, plaintiff’s at least lawfulness specific with intent have been committed “a requirements regard to the technical with deprive right.” of a a federal At rendered the arrest unlawful. 527, 535, 101 Taylor, Parratt 451 U.S. v. unreasonable, most, yet good his was an 1908, 1912, (1981). 68 L.Ed.2d 420 S.Ct. faith, a validity in the standard belief unlimited, Liability police officer not unpaid park in cases of practice employed provided a however. Public officials are ing good tickets. This faith mistake as to acts immunity for their official qualified legality negate act is sufficient to “insofar their conduct does not violate as legal required imposition for malice constitu clearly statutory or established Brown, v. punitive damages. Pollock a rights tional of which reasonable 724, (Mo. 733 banc Ab Fitzger Harlow v. would have known.” further evidence of reckless or con sent 2727, 2739, ald, 800, 818, 102 457 S.Ct. U.S. disregard rights plaintiff’s on the scious state, (1982).4 We cannot 73 L.Ed.2d 396 Weidemeyer, the part of Officer directed law, per reasonable as matter damages must punitive as to verdict Weidemeyer position of Officer son affirmed. unaware his conduct would have been At plaintiff was unlawful. arresting point Plaintiff’s fourth jury ques plaintiff’s evidence raises a against least was made Officer submissible case we (the point. Consequently, as employed Metro tion to this Hebauf this Center) against directed verdict as to Offi hold that Shopping North 42 U.S.C. 1983 defendant erroneous. cer (1976) for of constitutional deprivation However, the directed verdict pro has held to rights. Section 1983 been plain respect was erroneous wrongful arrest. Monroe vide redress for damages. Under tiff’s for actual claim 473, 167, 81 S.Ct. 5 Pape, 365 v. U.S. § 1983, damages are recoverable punitive Lee, (1961); 434 L.Ed.2d Giordano rights deprivations of constitutional for Cir.1970). However, (8th no F.2d disre reckless or callous committed with if a warrantless of action is stated cause gard rights. Wade, Peterson, those Smith v. Tyler v. is lawful. U.S. (E.D.Mo.1970). S.Ct. We al 75 L.Ed.2d F.Supp. 338 have Nevertheless, already we have of Officer He- ready held that the actions does plaintiff’s evidence concluded bauf, they may however contributed part disregard reckless demonstrate arrest, lawful. Plaintiff were ver Weidemeyer. The directed of Officer to recover right has not shown a damages against punitive dict of law. as matter Hebauf Harlow, per- their See 457 U.S. public who conduct. unclear officials 4. It is whether seq. resolution S.Ct. et merely functions must form ministerial unnecessary present question case. in the subjective prove a in the lawfulness belief exception applicable theory comparable statutory Weidemeyer under this must also be And, police. affirmed. the since it took to 28, 1983, September he is not place prior to challenges point final Plaintiff’s by exception the to the warrant covered in favor of the the directed verdict entered § 544.216, requirement supra.5 The fur- § City claim. city of Kansas on his 1983 telling circumstance is that he failed ther owned, city and Plaintiffs claim is that the piece paper giving ap- possess to a through employees operated, its the com making while pearance of a valid warrant into false information was puter files and appear an arrest for failure to answer plaintiff identified as the own placed which Unfortunately ticket. municipal a traffic theory This er of the ticketed automobile. Weidemeyer, these little de- for Officer all liability more than assert for a does no produce conspired against him to tails rights based deprivation of constitutional case. result this However, agents. a on the acts of its may held liable under municipality not be opinion, the As noted at the outset of this § solely theory respondeat a on holding pertains only to the of this case superior. Department Monell v. So they circumstances of this case as relate to York, 436 City cial New Services of arrest a Kansas mu- a warrantless 2036, U.S. S.Ct. nicipal jurisdiction police officer outside his (1978). Liability L.Ed.2d 611 under that involving only municipal traffic ordi- grounded upon injuries section must be re nance violation. sulting implementation from the of “offi reasons, foregoing judgment For the policy” “governmental or custom.” cial trial is reversed and remanded court Id., 690, 691, U.S. S.Ct. opportunity pro- afford Nothing plaintiffs 2036. evidence indi depri- arrest and ceed on his claims false policy cates that it was either the or cus rights against de- vation of constitutional city City to cause tom of the of Kansas respect fendant parties traffic warrants to be directed to damages. respects, In all other to actual legally responsible therefor. who were not hereby judgment of the trial court is Consequently, the directed verdict as to the affirmed. city must also be affirmed. part; Affirmed in reversed and remand- holding The ultimate of this case as part. ed in Weidemeyer’s liability determined narrow, extremely caught in for he is All concur. exceptionally some limited circumstances. him a Kansas

What catches is this: he is making arrest or tak- City police officer MOTION FOR REHEARING ON jurisdic- ing custody outside his PER CURIAM. municipal traffic ordinance viola- tion for a rehearing, plain In his motion for place outside Kansas tion. Since it took liability city under tiff contends that exception City, he is not covered § may grounded upon its owner requirement § 84.710, municipal traffic com- ship and use of the supra, nor is there a RSMo, view, 544.216, may Cum.Supp.1983 pro- and without a arrest Section RSMo 5. warrant, any violating or who he he sees vides: grounds has violated has reasonable to believe sheriff, county deputy any Any or sheriff misdemeanor, state, including any law of this municipal in this or law enforcement officer any ordinance over which such or has violated state, except political those officers of a subdivi- jurisdiction. power officer has having municipality population less sion to all section is in addition authorized persons does not thousand or which than two powers upon enforcement conferred law other officers, peace at least four full-time nonelected construed so as to and shall not be municipality officers unless such subdivision or any power en- other law limit or restrict operating elected to come under and has forcement officer. provisions of sections 590.100 590.- under generated the “war- system which puter upon by Officer Weide- entry acted

rant” conclusion upon this Court’s

meyer. Based Weidemey- by Officer plaintiffs arrest circumstances under

er unlawful, plaintiff urges

present here was issuing such practice of city’s rights. him of his civil deprived

“warrants” opinion, noted in the Court’s may follow liability

municipal implementation of “official

only from the custom.”

policy” “governmental Weidemeyer’s ac-

peculiar flaw Officer discussion,

tions, pertinent to this without occurred

his arrest limits of beyond territorial and computer City. Had the city of Kansas city, within the been executed “warrant” have existed. problem would

no such prima to make a order facie theory suggested city under the proof that have to be

plaintiff, there would city or custom of policy

it was the arrests of

cause warrantless No such territorial limits.

type outside its elicited, claim and

proof fails.

therefore Plaintiffs, CORPORATION, al., et

BCI CONSTRUCTION

CHARLEBOIS Defendant,

CO., Denton, Defendant-Appellant,

Robert W. Assn., Savings & Loan

First Federal Defendant-Respondent.

No. 65549. Missouri,

Supreme Court

En Banc. 19, 1984.

June

Case Details

Case Name: Rustici v. Weidemeyer

Court Name: Supreme Court of Missouri

Date Published: Jul 17, 1984

Citation: 673 S.W.2d 762

Docket Number: 65672

Court Abbreviation: Mo.