Brown v. City of St. Louis

Decision Date27 July 2022
Docket Number21-2460
Citation40 F.4th 895
Parties Rodney BROWN, Plaintiff - Appellant v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI ; John Does; Phil Harden; Donald Trump, Defendants Matthew T. Boettigheimer; Joseph Steiger; Steven Korte, Defendants - Appellees American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri, Amicus on Behalf of Appellant
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Amy Elizabeth Breihan, William Patrick Mobley, Roderick & Solange, Saint Louis, MO, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Brandon David Laird, Erin K. McGowan, Assistant City Counselor, Lawrence L. Pratt, City Counselor's Office, Saint Louis, MO, for Defendants-Appellees.

Molly E. Carney, Anthony E. Rothert, Jessie M. Steffan, American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri, Saint Louis, MO, Madison E. Churchill, Lisa S. Hoppenja, Tobin Raju, Corbin Robinson, Washington University, Saint Louis, MO, Gillian R. Wilcox, ACLU of Missouri Foundation, Saint Louis, MO, for Amicus on Behalf of Appellant.

Before SHEPHERD, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.

SHEPHERD, Circuit Judge.

Rodney Brown was removed from a political rally and arrested for violating a St. Louis, Missouri ordinance that prohibits disturbing the peace. After Brown was acquitted of that charge in state court, he brought claims against, as pertinent to this appeal, three St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department (SLMPD) officers (Officers Matthew Boettigheimer and Steven Korte and Detective Joseph Steiger). The district court1 granted summary judgment in favor of the officers, and Brown now appeals. Having jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

I.

On March 11, 2016, then-presidential candidate Donald Trump held a campaign rally at the Peabody Opera House in St. Louis, a privately owned venue. The event was ticketed, though tickets were free. Brown obtained a ticket and selected a front-row seat near the center of the stage. Although the exact number of attendees is not found in the record, Officer Boettigheimer testified in his deposition that he believed that over 1,000 people were in attendance. Additionally, numerous SLMPD officers were assigned to work the event. A 25-page intra-department report shows that the SLMPD deployed a multitude of units on the day of the rally, with units assigned to Trump's motorcade, the inside and outside of the Peabody Opera House, and the area surrounding the Peabody Opera House. Other units included a bomb and arson unit, an intelligence unit, a "mass arrest booking" unit, a special operations response squad, and a reserve SWAT team that coordinated with the United States Secret Service to offer a tactical response if needed. Officer Boettigheimer testified in his deposition that prior to working the at-issue rally, he learned of other Trump rallies that had become violent.

A video from the event, introduced by the officers in support of their motion for summary judgment and labeled as "Exhibit A," captured a pause in Trump's speech, at which point the auditorium's silence was disrupted by Brown's loud laughter. In response to this laughter, Trump shielded his eyes and looked into the crowd, apparently to determine where the laughter originated. Rallygoers began to stand up and can be heard in the video demanding that Brown be removed. Trump also demanded that Brown be removed, saying variations of "Get him out of here!"

The parties dispute what happened next. Brown maintains that other rallygoers "approached him ... cursing and gesturing at him excitedly" and that he, "at no point[,] showed any indication of violence and was merely expressing his political opposition to Trump." On the other hand, Officer Boettigheimer testified in his deposition that, after laughing loudly, Brown began creating a "larger disturbance" and was yelling and pointing at other rallygoers. Officer Boettigheimer explained that, even as he and Officer Korte were escorting Brown out of the auditorium, Brown was turning around and yelling at the other rallygoers. When asked in his deposition why he decided to first approach Brown, Officer Boettigheimer testified that he had been standing approximately 100 feet from Brown when Brown laughed loudly. He explained that if Brown had only laughed, he likely would not have approached and arrested Brown. However, after laughing loudly, Brown "continu[ed] to cause a disturbance," and Officer Boettigheimer felt that the disturbance was growing too large and needed to be "quell[ed] ... immediately."

A review of Exhibit A reveals that, after Brown's loud laughter, while Brown was still at his seat and before Officers Boettigheimer and Korte began escorting him out of the auditorium, another rallygoer confronted him. Mark Comfort, the man who was seated next to Brown, later testified in his deposition that Brown and this other rallygoer were standing "nose-to-nose." Exhibit A then shows Officers Boettigheimer and Korte approach Brown and escort him out of the auditorium. In accordance with Officer Boettigheimer's version of events, Exhibit A depicts Brown resisting the officers while also yelling and gesturing wildly at the other rallygoers and Trump. Although the video concludes prior to Brown's arrest, the record shows that, once out of the auditorium, Officer Boettigheimer placed Brown under arrest. Detective Steiger later prepared the incident report documenting Brown's arrest, as well as dozens of other arrests that took place at the rally. Detective Steiger was not present at the Peabody Opera House, and he did not participate in Brown's arrest.

On April 6, 2016, the City of St. Louis filed a formal charge against Brown for violating Section 15.46.030 of the Revised Code of the City of St. Louis, which prohibits disturbing the peace. Following a bench trial before the St. Louis City Municipal Court, Brown was acquitted of this charge. He thereafter filed this lawsuit in which he brought eight claims and named as defendants Officers Boettigheimer, Korte, and Phil Harden, as well as Detective Steiger, Trump, John Does 1-3, and the City of St. Louis.2 After the district court granted the City of St. Louis's motion to dismiss and the parties stipulated to the dismissal of several claims, only five claims remained. Of those five claims, three were brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 : a Fourth Amendment unlawful seizure claim against Officers Boettigheimer and Korte (Claim 1); a Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution claim against Officers Boettigheimer and Korte and Detective Steiger (Claim 2); and a First Amendment retaliation claim against Officers Boettigheimer and Korte (Claim 3). The other two claims were brought under Missouri law: a false arrest claim against Officers Boettigheimer and Korte (Claim 5); and a malicious prosecution claim against Officers Boettigheimer and Korte and Detective Steiger (Claim 6). In each of these claims, Brown sued the officers in their individual capacities. The officers moved for summary judgment, and the district court granted that motion, finding that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. This appeal follows.

II.

We review an appeal from a grant of summary judgment based on qualified immunity de novo. Irvin v. Richardson, 20 F.4th 1199, 1204 (8th Cir. 2021). Summary judgment is appropriate "[w]here the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, [meaning that] there is no ‘genuine issue for trial.’ " Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007) (citation omitted). Generally, we view the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and "mak[e] all reasonable inferences in its favor." Walz v. Randall, 2 F.4th 1091, 1099 (8th Cir. 2021). However, "[w]hen opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment." Steed v. Mo. State Highway Patrol, 2 F.4th 767, 770 (8th Cir. 2021) (quoting Scott, 550 U.S. at 380, 127 S.Ct. 1769 (alteration in original)); see also Watson v. Boyd, 2 F.4th 1106, 1110 (8th Cir. 2021) ("When reviewing a law enforcement officer's entitlement to qualified immunity at summary judgment, a district court ‘must take a careful look at the record, determine which facts are genuinely disputed, and then view those facts in a light most favorable to the non-moving party as long as those facts are not so "blatantly contradicted by the record ... that no reasonable jury could believe [them]." " (alterations in original) (citation omitted)). Rather, instead of blindly accepting the nonmoving party's version of the facts, we may rely on video evidence found in the record where that video evidence "blatantly contradict[s]" the nonmoving party's characterization of the facts. See Steed, 2 F.4th at 770 (declining to adopt plaintiff's version of facts and instead looking to version of facts shown in video footage where two versions were inconsistent); White v. Jackson, 865 F.3d 1064, 1077 (8th Cir. 2017) (same); Ehlers v. City of Rapid City, 846 F.3d 1002, 1010 (8th Cir. 2017) (same).

Here, the district court granted qualified immunity to Officers Boettigheimer and Korte and Detective Steiger on all claims brought against them by Brown. "Police officers are ‘entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, demonstrate the deprivation of a constitutional or statutory right; and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.’ " Bell v. Neukirch, 979 F.3d 594, 602 (8th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). " ‘Clearly established’ means that, at the time of the officer's conduct, the law was "sufficiently clear" that every "reasonable official would understand that what he is doing" is unlawful." District of Columbia v. Wesby, ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S. Ct. 577, 589, 199 L.Ed.2d 453 (2018) (citation omitted). Stated...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Ryno v. City of Waynesville
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • January 26, 2023
    ...cause’ are not interchangeable, and each term serves a different purpose within the qualified immunity analysis." Brown v. City of St. Louis, 40 F.4th 895, 901 (8th Cir. 2022). While the issue of probable cause addresses the first, constitutional-violation prong, "the issue of arguable prob......
  • Lipsky v. Cronin
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Dakota
    • March 6, 2023
    ...under the Fourth Amendment where there is probable cause to believe that a criminal offense has been or is being committed.” Brown, 40 F.4th at 900. Accordingly, consideration of actual probable cause assigned to the constitutional violation prong of the qualified immunity analysis. See id.......
  • Warren v. Goza
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas
    • October 3, 2022
    ... 1 STEVEN V. WARREN, PLAINTIFF v. GERALD GOZA, Police Chief, City of Egypt, Individually and in his Official Capacity; CITY OF EGYPT; JERRY COOK, Mayor, Individually ... Chief Goza is entitled to qualified immunity for the arrests ... Brown v. City of St. Louis, 40 F.4th 895, 901 (8th ... Cir. 2022). Even if Chief Goza was ... ...
  • Kavanaugh v. Edwards
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • February 17, 2023
    ... ... stop. Doc. [85-3] at 2. After the St. Louis County Police ... Department Crime Laboratory confirmed the substance found in ... the ... a genuine issue of material fact ... Torgerson v. City of Rochester , 643 F.3d 1031, 1042 ... (8th Cir. 2011). “The moving party can satisfy its ... and, therefore, is entitled to qualified immunity on that ... basis. Brown v. City of St. Louis , 40 F.4th 895, 902 ... (8th Cir. 2022) (“We decline to decide whether ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT