Burbridge v. City of St. Louis, 4:17-CV-02482-SRC

Decision Date20 December 2019
Docket NumberNo. 4:17-CV-02482-SRC,4:17-CV-02482-SRC
Citation430 F.Supp.3d 595
Parties Drew E. BURBRIDGE, et al., Plaintiff(s), v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, et al., Defendant(s).
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri

Talmage E. Newton, IV, Brandy B. Barth, Newton Barth, L.L.P., St. Louis, MO, for Plaintiff(s).

Abby J. Duncan, Robert H. Dierker, Thomas R. McDonnell, Amy M. Raimondo, Megan Kathleen G. Bruyns, Brandon D. Laird, City of St. Louis Law Department, St. Louis, MO, for Defendant(s).

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

STEPHEN R. CLARK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment [89] of the City of St. Louis, Police Officers Marcus Biggins, Sgt. Brian Rossomanno, Samuel Rachas, and Keith Burton. Plaintiffs oppose the Motion. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the Motion in part and denies it in part.

I. FACTS AND BACKGROUND

On September 15, 2017, the 22nd Judicial Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis issued a ruling in the criminal case against former St. Louis Police Officer Jason Stockley, finding him not guilty. In the days that followed, many people gathered in downtown St. Louis to protest the verdict.

Plaintiffs Drew E. Burbridge and Jennifer L. Burbridge are documentary filmmakers who were present in downtown St. Louis on the evening of September 17, 2017 to video-document the Stockley protests. The Burbridges allege that officers of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department (SLMPD) violated their civil rights. The Burbriges initiated this action on September 26, 2017, and have filed their Third Amended Complaint. Doc. 70. The Burbridges bring claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivation of their civil rights, civil conspiracy to deprive them of their civil rights, and for failure to train or supervise. The Burbridges also bring state law claims for assault and battery, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution.

The Court finds the following facts uncontroverted for purposes of this Motion:1

A. The Stockley Verdict and Ensuing Protests

After the state trial court acquitted Jason Stockley on Friday, September 15, 2017, protests occurred in the City of St. Louis throughout the following weekend. Lt. Colonel Gerald Leyshock was the incident commander for the SLMPD's response to protest activity that weekend. Protests during daylight hours were largely peaceful, with little or no property damage, and only sporadic incidents of violence. However, in the evening hours of Friday night, September 15, protestors engaged in significant acts of property damage, including to the mayor's residence and to the Central West End area of the City. Further, there were multiple reports of officers injured by acts committed by protestors on Friday night. At that point, the SLMPD declared an unlawful assembly and ordered the crowd to disperse. On Saturday evening, September 16, the SLMPD again received reports of property destruction and police officers surrounded by protestors.

B. September 17 Protests and SLMPD Response

On Sunday afternoon, September 17, a large group of protestors engaged in a peaceful march, starting and concluding at Police Headquarters on Olive Street. Protests continued into Sunday evening. At approximately 9:00 p.m., Leyshock received a report that an officer had been injured and that several protestors possessed weapons. At approximately 10:40 p.m., Leyshock received reports that a group of protestors had gathered at the intersection of Tucker and Locust Street and was engaging with a unit of SLMPD's bicycle response team. Major Daniel Howard, who was on the scene with the bicycle response team, reported to Leyshock that individuals in the crowd at Locust and Tucker were being belligerent to police officers and throwing things at the officers. In response to these reports, Leyshock ordered Sgt. Rossomanno to declare an unlawful assembly and to issue dispersal warnings. Howard informed Leyshock that he did not believe he had enough officers to safely arrest the individuals who were engaging in an unlawful assembly. Leyshock then dispatched backup units from SLMPD's Civil Disobedience Teams to the downtown area to assist with making arrests.

At approximately 10:45 p.m., Sgt. Rossomanno issued an order declaring the assembly to be unlawful and ordering those present to disperse.2 Rossomanno's dispersal order included a warning that failure to disperse would be cause for arrest and that the use of chemical munitions was imminent. Rossomanno issued the dispersal order multiple times through the public address system of his police vehicle, and also attempted to issue the dispersal order conversationally to individual groups of people who had gathered on Tucker Street between Locust and Washington.

C. Mass Arrests at Washington and Tucker

When Leyshock dispatched the Civil Disobedience Team units to the downtown area, he ordered them to arrest anyone that had not dispersed from the area once they arrived. When the Civil Disobedience Team units arrived downtown, the group on Tucker Street had mostly migrated from the intersection of Tucker and Locust to the intersection of Tucker and Washington. Leyshock then ordered the Civil Disobedience Team units to arrest all individuals who had not dispersed from Washington and Tucker. Sometime around midnight, multiple lines of police officers started gathering around the intersection of Washington and Tucker. Many of the officers were dressed in protective gear including helmets, shields, and batons. The officers fanned out along the crosswalks at the intersection, cutting off all routes of egress. Officers banged on their shields with their batons as they encircled the intersection. Officers ordered the crowd to move back and to sit on the ground. The officers then rushed forwarded and arrested the individuals who were caught in the intersection. In total, officers arrested more than 100 people. Several of the individuals in the group located at Washington and Tucker refused to follow otherwise lawful commands of the officers.

D. Drew and Jennifer Burbridge

Drew and Jennifer Burbridge arrived in the area of Washington and Tucker sometime after 11:00 p.m. on Sunday evening. Their purpose in downtown St. Louis that evening was to observe and document the civil unrest following the Stockley verdict. They brought with them a video camera. Upon their arrival, the Burbridges observed a crowd of approximately 100 protestors in the area of Washington and Tucker. Some were marching and demonstrating, and others were just standing around. As the Burbridges approached the demonstration, they walked past a number of police officers, none of whom told the Burbridges that they could not be in the area or that they had to leave. The Burbridges began videoing the activities of the protestors. Neither of the Burbridges heard any orders to disperse.

The Burbridges were in the intersection of Washington and Tucker at approximately midnight when SLMPD officers began to encircle the intersection. When they realized the officers were cutting off all egress, the Burbridges approached the police line and, orally identified themselves as members of the media, attempted to leave the area. Unidentified officers in the police line told the Burbridges they could not leave. The Burbridges then complied with police orders to move back and sit on the ground.

E. Arrest of Drew Burbridge

Defendant SLMPD Officers Samuel Rachas and Keith Burton arrived at the intersection of Washington and Tucker in response to a request from dispatch to respond downtown. A superior officer ordered Rachas and Burton to place zip-tie restraints on the group of people in the Washington and Tucker intersection who were being placed under arrest.

While Drew3 was sitting with Jennifer on the sidewalk, inside the police encirclement, he heard an unidentified officer say, "That's him." Then Officers Rachas and Burton grabbed Drew and dragged him away from Jennifer by his arms. Without standing Drew up, and before placing him in restraints, Rachas and Burton began to place Drew on the ground, face down, so that they could place restraints on his hands behind his back. At no time from when Rachas and Burton grabbed him to when he was put prone on the ground did Drew resist the police. Drew told Rachas and Burton that he was not a protestor, was not resisting, and was a member of the media.

Defendant Officer Marcus Biggins observed Rachas and Burton bring Drew to the ground. Biggins testified during his deposition that Drew was "not fighting" the officers, but was "fighting being arrested" and "squirming." Biggins knelt down on Drew's legs while Rachas and Burton effected the arrest. Drew had a knee placed on his neck, and was repeatedly struck by officers. He was kicked with a boot, struck on the back of the head, struck on the ribs, and struck on his shoulder. At some point, he lost consciousness.4

Jennifer witnessed Drew being maced, stomped on, and struck by officers. While Drew was on the ground with Rachas and Burton on top of him, Defendant Sgt. Rossomanno twice deployed mace in Drew's face.

Both parties have submitted video evidence of the arrest of Drew Burbridge.5 Although the view of Drew's arrest and his interaction with the officers is frequently obstructed, some facts are plainly observable in the video. When Officers Rachas and Burton put Drew Burbridge on the ground, Drew was not yet in wrist restraints. Doc. 100-3, at 00:12. Drew's arrest, measured from when Officers Burton and Rachas pulled him from the crowd to when Burton and Rachas finished restraining his hands with zip-ties and moved on, lasted approximately 30 seconds. Id. at 00:10-00:42. The entire interaction between Drew and the officers, from the time Officers Burton and Rachas pulled Drew from the crowd to when Officer Biggins escorted him from the scene, lasted little more than a minute. Id. at 00:10-01:33.

After being taken into custody, Drew was charged with "failure to disperse" and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
35 cases
  • Dundon v. Kirchmeier
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of North Dakota
    • December 29, 2021
    ...because—without knowledge of those facts—their mistaken belief that they had probable cause was objectively reasonable. 430 F. Supp. 3d 595, 611 (E.D. Mo. 2019), aff'd, 2 F.4th 774 (8th Cir. 2021).[¶123] The Plaintiffs assert officers failed to give orders to disperse and failed to give war......
  • Langford v. City of St. Louis
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • March 5, 2020
    ...briefing was complete, the City filed a notice of supplemental authority as to Burbridge v. City of St. Louis, Missouri , No. 4:17CV2482, 430 F.Supp.3d 595 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 20, 2019), appeal docketed , No. 20-1029 (8th Cir. Jan. 6, 2020). In Burbridge , the Court held Section 17.16.275 was no......
  • Faulk v. City of St. Louis
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • April 6, 2022
    ...Louis, 476 F. Supp. 3d 900 (E.D. Mo. 2020), aff'd sub nom. Baude v. Leyshock, 23 F.4th 1065 (8th Cir. 2022)• Burbridge v. City of St. Louis, 430 F.Supp.3d 595 (E.D. Mo. 2019), aff'd, 2 F.4th 774 (8th Cir. 2021)• Rose v. City of St. Louis, No. 4:18-CV-1568 RLW, 2019 WL 4602829 (E.D. Mo. Sept......
  • Baude v. City of St. Louis
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • August 4, 2020
    ...thus preclude the Defendants’ claim for qualified immunity at this time.Defendants also cite to Burbridge v. City of St. Louis, 430 F.Supp.3d 595 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 2019) (Clark, J.), which arose out of the same incident and held that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on a clai......
  • 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