Bell v. Neukirch
| Decision Date | 28 October 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 19-1713,19-1713 |
| Citation | 979 F.3d 594 |
| Parties | Tyree BELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Officer Peter NEUKIRCH, in his individual capacity; Officer Jonathan Munyan, in his individual capacity; Detective John Mattivi, in his individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees. Sergeant John Doe, I, in his individual and official capacities; Captain John Doe, II, in his individual and official capacities; John Doe, III, in his individual and official capacities; Darryl Forte, in his former official capacity as Police Chief of the Kansas City, Missouri Police Department, Defendants. Leland Shurin, in his official capacity as President and a member of the Board of Police Commissioners of Kansas City, Missouri, Defendant-Appellee. Angela Wasson-Hunt, in her official capacity as Treasurer and a member of the Board of Police Commissioners of Kansas City, Missouri; Michael Rader, in his official capacity as a member of the Board of Police Commissioners of Kansas City, Missouri, Defendants. Nathan F. Garrett, in his official capacity as a member of the Board of Police Commissioners of Kansas City, Missouri; Mayor Sylvester "Sly" James, in his official capacity as a member of the Board of Police Commissioners of Kansas City, Missouri; Luis Ortiz, in his individual and official capacities; Richard C. Smith, Police Chief of the Kansas City, Missouri Police Department; Mark Tolbert, in his official capacity as a member of the Board of Police Commissioners of Kansas City, Missouri; Don Wagner, in his official capacity as a member of the Board of Police Commissioners of Kansas City, Missouri, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Arthur A. Benson II, Law Office of Arthur Benson II, Kansas City, MO, argued (Jamie Kathryn Lansford, on the brief), for plaintiff-appellant.
Peter T. Reed, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, MO, argued (Eric S. Schmitt, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, MO, Diane Peters, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kansas City, MO, on the brief), for defendants-appellees.
Before SMITH, Chief Judge, COLLOTON and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
About seven minutes after a black juvenile male with a gun fled from police in Kansas City, Missouri, officers arrested Tyree Bell a mile away from the scene. Bell and the suspect shared only generic characteristics in common: black, juvenile, and male. Bell, however, had several characteristics distinct from the suspect: he was taller than the suspect; had distinguishable hair from the suspect; and wore shorts, shoes, and socks that differed from those donned by the suspect. These distinctions are depicted on a police video recording that the arresting officers reviewed. Three weeks later, with Bell still in custody, a detective reviewed the video and concluded that Bell was not the offender. Authorities promptly released Bell and dismissed all charges. Bell then sued the arresting officers, alleging that they seized him without probable cause. He also raised claims against the detective and a sergeant who authorized the detention, and he named the sergeant, the police chief, and members of the Board of Police Commissioners of Kansas City as defendants in their official capacities based on alleged failures to train and supervise the arresting officers.
The district court, describing it as a "difficult case," ruled that the arresting officers were entitled to qualified immunity, because a reasonable officer could have believed that there was probable cause to arrest Bell. Bell v. Neukirch , 376 F. Supp. 3d 989, 1004 (W.D. Mo. 2019). We conclude, however, that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to Bell, would support a finding that the arresting officers violated Bell's clearly established right to be free from an unreasonable seizure without probable cause under the circumstances. We therefore reverse the dismissal of the claims against those officers. We affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the other defendants.
Police in Kansas City received a 911 call just before 4:08 p.m. on June 8, 2016. The caller reported that a couple of black juvenile males with guns were present with four or five teenage girls outside a house on Marsh Avenue. He explained that the males were pulling out the guns, hugging the girls, and playing with the weapons. The caller expressed concern that someone could get hurt. He identified the first black juvenile male as having dreads, wearing a white t-shirt and jeans, and having a gun in his pocket. The caller identified the second black juvenile male as wearing a black shirt and having a gun. The caller suggested that police could apprehend them. He also advised that the police could contact him at the phone number he was calling from.
At approximately 4:10 p.m., Kansas City, Missouri Police Officers Peter Neukirch and Jonathan Munyan responded to the call to investigate the suspicious gun activity. At 4:13 p.m., while en route to the area, Officer Munyan called the 911 caller. The caller advised Officer Munyan that the suspects were no longer outside on the corner but had entered the home located at the address.
At approximately 4:18 p.m., the officers arrived at the location and drove their vehicle toward three black juvenile males who were walking along the side of the street. Officer Neukirch sounded a siren briefly, and the young men looked at the police car. As the officers exited their vehicle, one of the three males began to run. Officer Munyan yelled for him to "drop the gun" and gave chase. The runner tossed a gun over a fence on his left-hand side, continued to the end of the block, turned left at the corner, and continued to flee. Officer Munyan followed around the corner, but he could not catch the suspect.
Officer Munyan then announced a description of the fleeing suspect over a police radio: Shortly thereafter, Officer Munyan elaborated: "Juvenile black male, 17-18, about 5’10," skinny, blue shorts, white t-shirt, shoulder-length dreads. He was taking his shoes off. I'm not sure what kind of shoes he had." A video recording of the initial police encounter taken from the patrol car shows that the fleeing suspect had all-black bushy hair that did not reach his neckline.1 The video also shows that he wore a plain white t-shirt; dark solid-colored shorts; and long, striped gray socks that rose near mid-calf. The video reveals that the suspect was not wearing basketball sneakers but instead a low-cut footwear, no more than ankle high.
About a mile away at approximately 4:25 p.m.—seven minutes after the suspect began to flee—Officer Chris Viesselman saw Bell walking along 87th Street and talking on his cell phone. Officer Viesselman asked Officer Munyan by radio whether he was sure that the suspect had removed his shoes and explained that he "[had] a younger black male with ... braids or dreads ... approaching Blue Ridge, white shirt, with black-and-white shorts." Officer Munyan replied,
In the meantime, Bell had casually walked past Officer Viesselman's parked patrol car apparently unalarmed by his presence. Officer Viesselman backed up his car so that Bell was in front of it. Bell did not run. Officer Viesselman exited his car and called Bell over; Bell came right to Officer Viesselman. Officer Viesselman frisked Bell and asked for identification. Bell said that he was not carrying identification and that he was coming from his cousin's house down the street. Officer Viesselman decided to detain Bell and handcuffed him.
Video footage from Officer Viesselman's dashcam and photographs of Bell show Bell wearing a white t-shirt, black shorts with a wide white stripe on each side, short black socks, and black Nike Air Jordan basketball shoes trimmed in red with a red logo on the tongue. Bell's hairstyle appears to be short dreadlocks above the neckline, and his haircolor is black with brown-colored tips.
Bell asked why he was detained, and Officer Viesselman said that Bell matched the description of a suspect who was carrying a gun during a foot chase with police. Another officer asked Officer Viesselman by radio about Bell's breathing and sweating. The weather in Kansas City was sunny and about 86 degrees. Officer Viesselman responded that Bell was "[a] little sweaty," and that "[h]e's breathing normal, though." Officer Munyan then interjected by radio that he would be able to recognize the suspect if he could get to Officer Viesselman's location. The supervising officer, Sergeant Luis Ortiz, notified Officer Viesselman that Officer Munyan was on his way.
As they waited, Officer Viesselman questioned Bell. Looking at Bell's feet, Officer Viesselman asked, He then added, "They[’re] on there pretty good?" Viesselman then questioned Bell about his height. Bell said that he was 6’3," to which Officer Viesselman commented, "You[’re] a tall boy. Play basketball?" Officer Viesselman also asked Bell how much he weighed; Bell said he weighed 155 pounds. Officer Viesselman remarked to Bell that "[y]ou don't seem like you're really out of breath after a foot chase or anything, so I don't imagine it's you, but you match what he's wearing, so that's why I gotta stop you until we check." Officer Viesselman added that "[y]ou're the right age, too; he was a juvenile."
Officer Munyan arrived shortly thereafter, driving an unmarked pickup truck. He pulled over on the opposite side of the street, about 30 feet from Officer Viesselman and Bell. From his patrol vehicle, Officer Munyan identified Bell as the fleeing suspect. As officers searched Bell, Officer Munyan said that he had "noticed the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Leonard v. St. Charles Cnty.
...violation under similar circumstances."), aff'd , 987 F.3d 752 (8th Cir. 2021) ; see also Bell v. Neukirch , 979 F.3d 594, 613 (8th Cir. 2020) (Stras, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (noting "neither [the arrestee] nor the court" identified "a single precedent" finding a cons......
-
Pollreis v. Marzolf
...that they did not seem out of breath, as might have been expected had they been fleeing a crime scene on foot. Cf. Bell v. Neukirch, 979 F.3d 594, 604 (8th Cir. 2020) ("Bell's relatively fresh appearance is noticeably inconsistent with what a reasonably prudent officer would expect to obser......
-
Irvin v. Richardson
...caller are not enough to raise a reasonable suspicion that either of them was the person who displayed a firearm. Cf. Bell v. Neukirch, 979 F.3d 594, 604–06 (8th Cir. 2020) (finding no probable cause where both the plaintiff and suspect were "black male juveniles wearing white t-shirts," bu......
-
Doe v. Aberdeen Sch. Dist.
...in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, reveal a deprivation of a federal constitutional or statutory right. Bell v. Neukirch, 979 F.3d 594, 602 (8th Cir. 2020). Second, we ask whether that right was clearly established when the deprivation occurred. Id. We may begin and resolve the ......
-
Constitutional Law--Qualified Immunity Improperly Shields Officer Who Ignored Exculpatory Evidence in Prolonging Investigatory Stop from Liability.
...States v. Rivera, 370 F.3d 730, 733 (8th Cir. 2004) (explaining standard for evaluating legality of arrest). (26.) See Bell v. Neukirch, 979 F.3d 594, 603-04 (8th Cir. 2020) (highlighting concerns in evaluating officers' actions); Bergman et al., supra note 25 (noting courts should carefull......