Boude v. City of Raymore
Decision Date | 05 May 2017 |
Docket Number | No. 16-1183,16-1183 |
Citation | 855 F.3d 930 |
Parties | Kimberly BOUDE, Plaintiff–Appellant v. CITY OF RAYMORE, MISSOURI ; Joseph German, Police Officer; Raymore Missouri Police Department, Defendants Michael W. Heady, Police Officer, Defendant–Appellee |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
855 F.3d 930
Kimberly BOUDE, Plaintiff–Appellant
v.
CITY OF RAYMORE, MISSOURI ; Joseph German, Police Officer; Raymore Missouri Police Department, Defendants
Michael W. Heady, Police Officer, Defendant–Appellee
No. 16-1183
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: December 14, 2016
Filed: May 5, 2017
Andrew B. Protzman, Protzman Law Firm, LLC, Kansas City, MO, argued (Christopher M. Sorenson, on the brief), for appellant.
David S Baker, Fisher, Paterson, Sayler & Smith, LLP, Kansas City, MO, argued, for appellee.
Before WOLLMAN, SMITH,1 and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
BENTON, Circuit Judge.
Kimberly K. Boude sued Officer Michael W. Heady of the Raymore, Missouri, Police Department for excessive use of force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as common law negligence and battery. The district court2 granted summary judgment to Heady based on qualified and official immunity. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.
I.
Boude was addicted to huffing aerosol spray cans, which intoxicated her. On March 17, 2012, Raymore Police Officer Joseph German was dispatched to "check on a person in their vehicle" in the parking lot of a Sonic restaurant. Arriving, German found Boude behind the wheel of her vehicle, an SUV. Seeing she was "not completely coherent," he summoned medical assistance.
The next day, Boude huffed two times and then drove to the Sonic restaurant. On patrol, German and Heady heard a radio dispatch about a motorist potentially in need of assistance. The dispatcher's description matched Boude's SUV from the previous day. Heady knew about German's encounter with Boude the day before, and began to search for the car. Within minutes, he saw a SUV matching the description. Stepping out of his patrol car, Heady motioned and told Boude to stop her SUV. Boude stopped. Heady approached the open driver-side window. German arrived within one minute of the stop. His dash camera recorded the events.
Heady asked Boude how much she huffed that day. She said "not much." Heady told her to turn the car off. Boude reached for the gearshift of the SUV. As she reached, the car's brake lights turned on. Heady said "no, no, no," reached through the front window, turned off the ignition, and took the keys. Heady told Boude to step out of the car. She failed to comply. Heady physically removed her, placed her on the ground, and handcuffed her. Boude later pled guilty to driving while intoxicated, a misdemeanor. She claims injures from the arrest, requiring spinal surgery and physical therapy.
Boude sued Heady for excessive force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. She also alleged common law negligence and battery. The district court granted summary judgment to Heady based on qualified and official immunity. Boude appeals.
II.
This court reviews de novo a grant of qualified immunity. See Stodghill v. Wellston Sch. Dist. , 512 F.3d 472, 476 (8th Cir. 2008). While this court views the facts most favorably to Boude, it need not adopt her factual allegations where a video "blatantly contradict[s]" her version of events. See Scott v. Harris , 550 U.S. 372, 380, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007).
Qualified immunity is a basis to dismiss a claim against a public employee if the alleged conduct "does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." See Hayek v. City of St. Paul , 488 F.3d 1049, 1054 (8th Cir. 2007) (quotation omitted). The qualified immunity analysis considers two questions: First, "taken in the light most favorable to the party asserting the injury, do the facts alleged show the officer's conduct violated a constitutional right?" See Harris , 550 U.S. at 377, 127 S.Ct. 1769 (quotation omitted). Second, whether the right at issue was "clearly established in light of the specific context of the case." See id. (quotation omitted). Courts may decide "which of the two prongs of the qualified immunity analysis should be addressed first in light of the circumstances in the particular case at hand." See Pearson v. Callahan , 555 U.S. 223, 236, 129 S.Ct. 808, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009).
Boude contends that Heady violated her Fourth Amendment "right to be free from excessive force in the context of an arrest." See Shannon v. Koehler , 616 F.3d 855, 859 (8th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). Under the Fourth Amendment, police officers are liable for excessive force that is not objectively reasonable under the circumstances. See Brown v. City of Golden Valley , 574 F.3d 491, 496 (8th Cir. 2009). Officers are "justified in using force to remove a driver, whom they believed to be impaired, from his vehicle after he refused to comply with their order to exit it." Schoettle v. Jefferson Cty. , 788 F.3d 855, 860 (8th Cir. 2015). Accord Wertish v. Krueger , 433 F.3d 1062, 1066 (8th Cir. 2006) (holding that when a driver failed to comply with an officer's orders to get out of the vehicle, it was objectively reasonable for the officer to pull the driver from the truck and handcuff him).
Here, it was objectively reasonable for Heady to believe that Boude's reach for the gearshift was an attempt to shift the car to drive and to flee. Heady knew about Boude's huffing the day before, so he had reason to believe she was intoxicated and a potential threat to public safety. See Schoettle , 788 F.3d at 860 (citation omitted) (noting the "potential threat to public safety" when an impaired driver is in command of a vehicle). When the brake lights to the SUV turned on—consistent with shifting gears—Heady said "no, no, no," reached into the car, and turned off the ignition. After Boude refused to comply with Heady's order to exit, he was "justified in using force to remove [Boude], whom [Heady] believed to be impaired." See id.
True, as the district court found, the dash-cam video does not "blatantly contradict" Boude's allegation that she "reached for the gear shift to make sure her vehicle was in park before she made any move to comply with Defendant's order that she turn the vehicle off." See Harris ,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
T.K. v. Cleveland
...to arrest someone" and "decision to use force in the performance of his duties" both are discretionary acts. Boude v. City of Raymore, Missouri, 855 F.3d 930, 935 (8th Cir. 2017) (quotation marks and citations omitted). Official immunity applies to intentional as well as negligent acts. Sei......
-
Waters v. Madson
...Nor need we adopt the plaintiff’s version of the facts if they are "blatantly contradict[ed]" by video evidence. Boude v. City of Raymore, 855 F.3d 930, 933 (8th Cir. 2017). "We will not affirm a dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim unless the plaintiff can prove no set of ......
-
Lombardo v. Saint Louis City, Case No. 4:16-CV-01637-NCC
...v. Olson , 592 F.3d 888, 892 (8th Cir. 2010) (cited cases omitted). The Court may address either question first. Boude v. City of Raymore , 855 F.3d 930, 933 (8th Cir. 2017) (citing Pearson v. Callahan , 555 U.S. 223, 236, 129 S.Ct. 808, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009) ). "If either question is answ......
-
Quraishi v. St. Charles Cnty.
...unless Anderson "acted in bad faith or with malice, which ordinarily requires actual intent to cause injury." See Boude v. City of Raymore , 855 F.3d 930, 935 (8th Cir. 2017)."[A] bad-faith allegation survives summary judgment if a plaintiff states ‘facts from which it could reasonably be i......