Clinton v. Garrett

Citation49 F.4th 1132
Decision Date21 September 2022
Docket Number21-2763
Parties Jared CLINTON, Plaintiff - Appellee v. Ryan GARRETT, individually and in his official capacity as a law enforcement officer for the Des Moines, Iowa Police Department; Brian Minnehan, individually and in his official capacity as a law enforcement officer for the Des Moines, Iowa Police Department; Ryan Steinkamp, individually and in his official capacity as a law enforcement officer for the Des Moines, Iowa Police Department; City of Des Moines, Iowa; Dana Wingert, individually and in his official capacity as Chief of Police for the Des Moines, Iowa Police Department, Defendants - Appellants
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

49 F.4th 1132

Jared CLINTON, Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Ryan GARRETT, individually and in his official capacity as a law enforcement officer for the Des Moines, Iowa Police Department; Brian Minnehan, individually and in his official capacity as a law enforcement officer for the Des Moines, Iowa Police Department; Ryan Steinkamp, individually and in his official capacity as a law enforcement officer for the Des Moines, Iowa Police Department; City of Des Moines, Iowa; Dana Wingert, individually and in his official capacity as Chief of Police for the Des Moines, Iowa Police Department, Defendants - Appellants

No. 21-2763

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: February 16, 2022
Filed: September 21, 2022


Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellants and appeared on the appellants’ brief was Michelle Mackel-Wiederanders, of Des Moines, IA.

Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellee and appeared on the appellee's brief was Gina Messamer, of Des Moines, IA. The following attorney appeared on the appellee's brief; Jessica Donels, of Des Moines, IA.

Before SMITH, Chief Judge, BENTON and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

SMITH, Chief Judge.

49 F.4th 1136

Jared Clinton's vehicle was stopped by three Des Moines police officers based on the officers’ inability to read the temporary license plate tag in Clinton's back window and on a suspicious look that one of Clinton's passengers gave the officers. The officers searched the vehicle, finding evidence of marijuana. Clinton was charged with possession of a controlled substance, in violation of Iowa Code § 124.401(5) ; the State of Iowa, however, did not pursue prosecution.

Clinton brought suit in state court against the officers for violation of his rights under the Fourth Amendment to the Federal Constitution and under Article I, § 8 of the Iowa Constitution and for conspiracy to violate his federal and state constitutional rights. He also brought claims against the chief of police and the City of Des Moines for deliberate indifference under federal and state law. The defendants timely removed the suit to federal court.

Thereafter, Clinton moved for summary judgment on all counts except for the amount of damages; the defendants filed a cross-motion for summary judgment on the basis of federal qualified immunity and state immunity. The district court1 entered an order deciding all claims as a matter of law but leaving the amount of damages for a jury trial. Rejecting the officers’ arguments that they were entitled to immunity, the court granted Clinton's motion on his Fourth Amendment and Iowa Constitution claims against the officers. It also granted Clinton summary judgment on his state-law claim against the City. The court dismissed Clinton's conspiracy claims, his federal claim against the City, and his state and federal claims against the police chief.

On appeal, the defendants argue that the district court erred in denying the individual officers qualified immunity on Clinton's federal law claims, in denying the officers state immunity on his Iowa law claims, and in denying summary judgment to the City on his deliberate indifference claim. We affirm.

I. Background

On October 3, 2019, Jared Clinton was pulled over by Des Moines Police Department Officers Ryan Garrett, Brian Minnehan, and Ryan Steinkamp riding together in Officer Garrett's marked police vehicle. According to Officers Garrett and Minnehan, as Clinton's vehicle passed the patrol car, Clinton's front-seat passenger sat up quickly from a reclined position, looked at the officers in an apparently nervous manner, and sat back down quickly.2 The officers subsequently began to follow Clinton's vehicle.

Additionally, the officers noted that Clinton's car did not have permanent license plates. Instead, the plates on Clinton's car advertised the dealership "Dewey Auto Outlet." See R. Doc. 35-1, at 19. Clinton had a valid temporary tag in the appropriate place in his vehicle's rear window. However, the officers were unable to "make out any writing" on it from their position behind Clinton's vehicle. Id. at 11. The officers "observed that the vehicle had ... dealer plates and a white piece of

49 F.4th 1137

paper taped in the back window. [They] followed the vehicle for several blocks and could not make out any writing on it." Id . According to Officer Minnehan, "mostly it [was] the angle of the back windshield and then the glare from the sun" that made the tag unreadable. Id. at 59. Officer Garrett similarly testified that he "could not have said" whether the tag "was blank or not blank" because "there was no way to tell" from where they were following Clinton's vehicle. Id. at 47. He further testified to having previously encountered forged tags because of the fact that paper tags are "easily altered." Id . Officer Steinkamp testified about his previous experiences with drivers placing counterfeit or blank documents in the windows of unregistered vehicles to mimic temporary registration tags.

The officers "initiated a traffic stop ... to verify that the paper tag was legitimate." Id. at 11. Officer Minnehan approached the vehicle and saw that Clinton's temporary tag was legible and that it was not expired. Officer Garrett went to Clinton's window. He testified that "he immediately detected a strong odor of marijuana coming from the vehicle." Id . He asked whether the car was titled in Clinton's name. Clinton asked Officer Garrett why he had been stopped. The officer said, "I'm pulling you over because I was just checking up on your ID tag, OK?" J.A. at 374 (USB drive) (Garrett Body Cam. at 2:50–3:00). Officer Steinkamp explained to Clinton that the police encounter "a lot of [temporary registration tags] that are fraudulent. We don't know that until we verify it. That's why we pulled you over." Id. (Steinkamp Body Cam. at 5:20–5:50). Officer Minnehan told Clinton that he had been stopped because the officers could not "read [his] paper tag" from their vehicle. Id. (Minnehan Body Cam. at 22:00–22:30). He also told Clinton that the officers’ attention had been piqued when his passenger "looked at [them] real hard, like [he was] super nervous." Id. (Minnehan Body Cam. at 22:00–22:30).

In addition to observing the odor of marijuana, Officer Garrett saw what he believed to be evidence of the same on Clinton's person. Clinton told the officers that he had been smoking marijuana in the same clothing earlier that day. Thereafter, the officers searched the car and its occupants and discovered a vape pen and a vape cartridge both alleged to contain THC.

Clinton was arrested and charged with possession of a controlled substance, in violation of Iowa Code § 124.401(5). He spent approximately four hours in Polk County Jail. After Clinton filed a motion to suppress, the county attorney filed a notice of intent not to prosecute, and Clinton's criminal case was dismissed without prejudice.

On May 18, 2020, Clinton brought suit in Iowa state court against Officers Garrett, Minnehan, and Steinkamp as well as against the City and Chief of Police Dana...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Burnett v. Smith
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • May 5, 2023
    ... ... 2729436 (S.D. Iowa March 30, 2023); Young v. City of ... Council Bluffs , 569 F.Supp.3d 885 (S.D. Iowa 2021); ... Clinton v. Garrett , 551 F.Supp.3d 929 (S.D. Iowa ... 2021), aff'd , 49 F.4th 1132 (8th Cir. 2022); ... Wagner v. Iowa , No ... ...
  • Humphrey v. Payton
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas
    • December 20, 2022
    ...based on a reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity, rather than mere conjecture or hunches.”); see also Clinton v. Garrett, 49 F.4th 1132, 1143 (8th Cir. 2022) (concluding that it was clearly established in October of 2019 that police officers are constitutionally prohibited f......
  • United States v. Martinez
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Nebraska
    • June 29, 2023
    ... ... “A determination that reasonable suspicion ... exists, however, need not rule out the possibility of ... innocent conduct.” Clinton v. Garrett , 49 ... F.4th 1132, 1140 (8th Cir. 2022) (quoting United States ... v. Arvizu , 534 U.S. 266, 277 (2002)). In evaluating the ... ...
  • United States v. Clay
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Nebraska
    • February 16, 2023
    ... ... to see whether the detaining officer has a particularized and ... objective basis for suspecting legal wrongdoing.” ... Clinton v. Garrett , 49 F.4th 1132, 1140 (8th Cir ... 2022) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting United ... States v. Arvizu , 534 U.S ... ...
  • 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