Donahue v. Wihongi
| Citation | 948 F.3d 1177 |
| Decision Date | 17 January 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 19-4005,19-4005 |
| Parties | Kevin Leo DONAHUE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. Officer Shaun WIHONGI; Salt Lake City Police Department; Salt Lake City Corporation, Defendants - Appellees. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit) |
Karra J. Porter (J.D. Lauritzen with her on the briefs), of Christensen & Jensen, P.C., Salt Lake City, Utah, for Plaintiff – Appellant.
John E. Delaney (Mark E. Kittrell with him on the brief), of Salt Lake City Corporation, Salt Lake City, Utah, for Defendants – Appellees.
Before LUCERO, HARTZ, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.
Kevin Donahue was walking home one night when he saw a woman outside his neighbor’s house. Dr. Donahue thought she was trespassing, and a heated conversation ensued.1 They approached two police officers, Officer Shaun Wihongi and Officer Shawn Bennett, who were investigating an incident a few houses away. The officers questioned them separately. The woman told Officer Wihongi her name was "Amy LaRose," which later turned out to be untraceable. She claimed Dr. Donahue was drunk and had insulted her. Dr. Donahue refused to provide his name but admitted he had been drinking and said the woman had hit him. The officers eventually arrested and handcuffed Dr. Donahue.
Dr. Donahue sued Officer Wihongi, the Salt Lake City Police Department ("SLCPD"), and Salt Lake City Corporation ("SLC") (collectively, "Defendants"). He alleged Officer Wihongi violated his Fourth Amendment rights by (1) arresting him without probable cause, (2) using excessive force during the arrest, and (3) detaining him for too long. Officer Wihongi moved for summary judgment. The district court granted the motion on all three claims and dismissed the case. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
We present the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, drawing all reasonable inferences in his favor. See Estate of Booker v. Gomez , 745 F.3d 405, 411 (10th Cir. 2014).2
At 10:45 p.m. on April 21, 2015, Dr. Donahue saw Ms. LaRose hiding near his neighbor’s house. He questioned her and told her to leave. When Ms. LaRose refused, Dr. Donahue called her "a piece of shit." App. at 136. She responded by punching his left jaw. Dr. Donahue told Ms. LaRose he would call the police. She said she was hiding from police officers investigating an incident a few houses away.
Dr. Donahue and Ms. LaRose approached SLCPD Officers Bennett and Wihongi at the nearby house. Dr. Donahue explained, "This woman just assaulted me[;] I’d like to press charges on her." Id. at 137. Officer Bennett then began interviewing Dr. Donahue. Bennett 1 at 25:50-30:30; Bennett 2 at 0:00-2:10. Dr. Donahue explained Ms. LaRose had hit him, but he asked to wait before deciding to file a report. Id.
While Officer Bennett spoke with Dr. Donahue, Officer Wihongi separately interviewed Ms. LaRose. Wihongi 1 at 26:05-29:45. She gave Officer Wihongi her name and birthdate which he later discovered were untraceable in the police database.3 She also recounted her version of events: Dr. Donahue, a stranger "drunker than Cooter Brown," had approached her and called her a "piece of shit." Id. at 26:40-57.
After speaking with Ms. LaRose, Officer Wihongi joined Dr. Donahue and Officer Bennett. Wihongi 2 at 29:34-45. He heard Officer Bennett ask for Dr. Donahue’s name. Id. at 2:11-30. When Dr. Donahue refused, Officer Wihongi explained why a name is necessary for police assistance and recounted Ms. LaRose’s allegations. Id. at 2:33-3:32. Dr. Donahue appeared to confirm that he had insulted Ms. LaRose during their altercation, id. at 3:14-15,4 but denied starting the altercation, id. at 6:22-35.
Officer Bennett left to hear Ms. LaRose’s version of events. Officer Wihongi then told Dr. Donahue why he needed to investigate: "Two people are telling us a story that’s completely different in dynamics and we have to ... [decide] what’s gonna happen here." Id. at 6:48-56. When Officer Wihongi asked, "Have you been drinking this evening, sir?" Dr. Donahue responded, "Yes." Id. at 7:00-03.5 Officer Wihongi suggested Dr. Donahue was intoxicated and disruptive in violation of Utah’s public intoxication statute, but Dr. Donahue denied both assertions. Id. at 7:12-29.
Officer Bennett, having permitted Ms. LaRose to leave, rejoined them. He asked Dr. Donahue if he had been drinking, and Dr. Donahue again replied, "Yes." Id. at 7:45-48. Officer Wihongi again requested Dr. Donahue’s name, but he again refused. Id. at 8:26-33.
Officer Wihongi then pulled Dr. Donahue up by his arm, saying, "Stand up, sir ... You’re gonna be detained ... I’m not asking you, I’m telling you." Id. at 8:33-41. The officers pulled Dr. Donahue’s hands behind his back and handcuffed him. Id. at 8:38-9:20. Dr. Donahue protested, "Please don’t hurt me," claimed the officers were "twisting [his] wrist," and asked, "Why am I being detained?" Id. at 8:55-9:20. Officer Wihongi explained they were detaining him for public intoxication and failure to provide his name. Id. at 9:18-42. Officer Wihongi again requested Dr. Donahue’s name, and he again refused. Id. at 12:05-07.
When the officers briefly stepped away from Dr. Donahue, Officer Wihongi whispered his suspicion that Ms. LaRose was a runaway from the nearby incident. Id. at 17:00-15. He directed Officer Bennett to run "Amy LaRose" in the SLCPD database. Id. at 17:48-56. Officer Bennett did so, but found nothing. Id. at 23:31-57. Officer Wihongi then told Dr. Donahue he was "suspicious," id. at 24:21-27, of Ms. LaRose and would "make it known to ... the sergeant ... that we probably [should] take your handcuffs off," id. at 24:33-38.6
Throughout the encounter, Dr. Donahue had asked for a sergeant. See, e.g. , id. at 4:56-59, 8:18-21, 8:29-31, 12:22-25. Sergeant Wallace arrived 19 minutes after Dr. Donahue was handcuffed. Id. at 27:39-43. The parties agree that Dr. Donahue was released three minutes later.
* * * *
The following time line summarizes the significant events described above.7
Time Line Event Bodycam Video Time
Stamp
0:00 Interviews of Ms. LaRose and Dr. Bennett 1 at 25:50-30:30
Donahue begin. Bennett 2 at 0:00-2:10
11:40 Dr. Donahue first admits he has been Wihongi 2 at 7:00-03
drinking
12:25 Dr. Donahue again admits he has been Wihongi 2 at 7:45-48
drinking
13:06 Dr. Donahue refuses to provide his Wihongi 2 at 8:26-33
name
13:13 Dr. Donahue is told he is being Wihongi 2 at 8:33-41
detained
13:18 The officers handcuff Dr. Donahue. Wihongi 2 at 8:38-9:20
28:11 The officers discover Ms. LaRose's Wihongi 2 at 23:31-57
name is not in the SLCPD database.
(approximately) Dr. Donahue is released. Off-camera
35:19
Dr. Donahue filed a pro se complaint seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.8 He alleged the Defendants violated his Fourth Amendment rights by (1) arresting him without probable cause, (2) using excessive force during the arrest, and (3) detaining him for an excessively long period. Officer Wihongi moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity.
On the first claim, the district court concluded Officer Wihongi had reasonable suspicion that Dr. Donahue violated Utah’s "public intoxication" statute. Donahue v. Wihongi , No. 17-312, 2018 WL 6699743, at *3-4 (D. Utah Dec. 20, 2018). Officer Wihongi was therefore authorized to request Dr. Donahue’s name under Utah’s "stop-and-question" statute. Id.9 The court further reasoned that Dr. Donahue’s refusal to provide his name gave Officer Wihongi probable cause that Dr. Donahue had violated Utah’s "failure-to-identify" statute. Id . In turn, this authorized Officer Wihongi to arrest Dr. Donahue under Utah’s "arrest-with-probable-cause" statute. Id.10
On the second claim, the court determined Officer Wihongi’s use of force to arrest Dr. Donahue was objectively reasonable. Id. at *4.
On the third claim, it determined Officer Wihongi detained Dr. Donahue for a reasonable amount of time. Id. at *4-5.
Because the district court found no constitutional violation by Officer Wihongi, it granted summary judgment to him on all three claims and entered judgment dismissing the case. See Doc. 10683417 at 1; Dist. Ct. Doc. 58 at 1 (). Dr. Donahue timely appealed. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.11
Dr. Donahue cannot show Officer Wihongi violated his constitutional rights. Without an underlying constitutional violation, Dr. Donahue’s claims for municipal liability against SLCPD and SLC also cannot stand. We conclude the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to Officer Wihongi and entering judgment for all Defendants.
Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a state actor acting under color of state law who deprives an injured person of "any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured." State actors sued in their individual capacities may raise the defense of qualified immunity, which "shields public officials from [ § 1983 ] damages actions unless their conduct was unreasonable in light of clearly established law." Estate of Booker , 745 F.3d at 411 (alterations and quotations omitted).
When a defendant asserts a qualified immunity defense, "the plaintiff carries a two-part burden to show: (1) that the defendant’s actions violated a federal constitutional or statutory right, and, if so, (2) that the right was clearly established at the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
White v. City of Topeka
...committed "is only a misdemeanor." Koch v. City of Del City , 660 F.3d 1228, 1246–47 (10th Cir. 2011) ; see also Donahue v. Wihongi , 948 F.3d 1177, 1196–97 (10th Cir. 2020) (explaining that "[a] misdemeanor committed in a particularly harmless manner reduces the level of force reasonable f......
-
Bledsoe v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of the Cnty. of Jefferson
..."may not be held liable where there was no underlying constitutional violation by any of its officers." Donahue v. Wihongi , 948 F.3d 1177, 1199–1200 (10th Cir. 2020) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). But, as explained supra Parts III.A., III.B., and III.C., the court largel......
- Young v. State
-
Hinkle v. Beckham Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners
...against Hinkle's § 1983 claims. We review de novo "the award of summary judgment based on qualified immunity." Donahue v. Wihongi , 948 F.3d 1177, 1186 (10th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Lindsey v. Hyler , 918 F.3d 1109, 1113 (10th Cir. 2019) ). Qualified immunity ......