Furlow v. Belmar

Docket Number21-2640
Decision Date01 November 2022
Citation52 F.4th 393
Parties Dwayne FURLOW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Ralph Torres, Plaintiffs - Appellants Michael Gunn, Personal Representative of the Estate of Howard Liner, Deceased, Plaintiff v. Jon BELMAR; County of St. Louis, Missouri; Kevin Walsh, St. Louis County Police Officer, Badge #4068; Christopher Partin; Laura Clements, Detective, St. Louis County Police Department, Defendants - Appellees Ed Schlueter, St. Louis County Police Department; John Does, 1-20, St. Louis County Police Department, Defendants
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellants and appeared on the appellants' brief was Eric Alan Stone, of New York, NY. The following attorneys appeared on the appellant brief; Nathaniel R. Carroll, of Saint Louis, MO., Blake A. Strode, of Saint Louis, MO., Maureen Hanlon, of Saint Louis, MO., Ameya Sita Ananth, of New York, NY., Angelo R. Guisado, of New York, NY., Omar Ahmed Farah, of New York, NY., and Baher Azmy, of New York, NY.

Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellees and appeared on the appellees' brief was Frank James Smith, Jr., of Saint Charles, MO., formerly of Clayton, MO.

Before SHEPHERD, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.

ERICKSON, Circuit Judge.

The St. Louis County Police Department ("SLCPD") in Missouri utilizes what it calls a "Wanteds System." This system allows officers to issue electronic notices ("Wanteds") authorizing any other officer to seize a person and take him into custody for questioning without any review by a neutral magistrate before issuance. The Wanteds may pend for days, months, or, in some cases, indefinitely. Because of the problems created by these Wanteds, we reverse in part, affirm in part, and remand for further proceedings.

I. BACKGROUND
1. The Wanteds System

While Wanteds have the practical impact of authorizing the seizure, arrest, and custodial interrogation of a person at a remote location, they are not arrest warrants. According to documents from the St. Louis County Police Department ("SLCPD"), a Wanted is a law enforcement officer's system-wide notice that the subject is wanted for questioning by an officer, although no warrant is associated with the subject's record. The SLCPD defines a "warrant" as a judicially signed "official Court Order requesting the person be presented in court."

To issue a Wanted, an SLCPD officer, without any judicial oversight, concludes that probable cause exists to believe that the subject "has committed a crime."1 Armed with this independent conclusion, the officer notifies a computer clerk (known as a "CARE operator"), who enters the Wanted in the Regional Justice Information System ("REJIS") database. To have the Wanted entered into the system, the SLCPD officer need only identify the target's name, physical descriptors, personal data, address, charges being investigated, and the issuing officer's name and contact information. If all is in order, the Wanted is entered into the REJIS database. The CARE operator is wholly without information to assess the existence of probable cause to issue the Wanted.

On September 14, 2016, while this lawsuit was pending, the SLCPD added a new requirement that a supervising SLCPD officer must approve the Wanted before it may be entered into the system. The policy states that the supervising officer or his designee must review the facts supporting the initial officer's determination of probable cause. The Wanted displayed to and reviewed by the arresting officer does not include an affidavit or a statement setting forth the issuing officer's observations, inferences, and conclusions that supported his independent probable cause determination. Once the Wanted is entered into the REJIS database, it is available to most law enforcement agencies in St. Louis County and the surrounding counties in Missouri and Illinois. If the identified charge is a felony, the Wanted may also be available nationally through the National Crime Information Center ("NCIC") database as a "Temporary Wanted." Temporary Wanteds entered into the NCIC system or Missouri's Uniform Law Enforcement System automatically expire after 48 hours.

A Wanted in the REJIS database may be active anywhere from six months to indefinitely. Wanteds for misdemeanants remain active for a year, although the Wanted will be removed if (1) the suspect is arrested; (2) the statute of limitations is less than one year; or (3) the Wanted is cancelled. Suspects of non-Class A felonies may have an active Wanted outstanding for up to three years unless (1) the target is arrested; (2) the statute of limitations runs; or (3) the Wanted is cancelled. Wanteds for Class A suspected felons remain active in the REJIS database until they are removed by the agency or the suspect is arrested. Under the existing system, no process exists to quash or challenge a Wanted even though Wanteds may remain active for years.

The genesis of the Wanteds System appears to lie in the St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney's Office (the "PAO"), which "requires a complete investigation" prior to submitting an arrest warrant application to a judge. This "complete investigation," according to the PAO, requires an SLCPD officer to interview all suspects involved in the alleged crime before submitting the warrant application. The Wanted is a tool to help officers comply with the PAO's interview requirement. The SLCPD admits that Wanteds authorize any officer to arrest a suspect. This system has been in place for over 20 years, even though the U.S. Department of Justice recommended in 2015 that the Ferguson Police Department discontinue its use of a similar "wanteds" system.

From February 2011 until December 2016, the SLCPD issued approximately 15,000 Wanteds but only made about 2,500 formal arrests (i.e., roughly 17% of Wanteds resulted in arrests). The record does not reflect how many of those Wanteds resulted in arrest warrants or criminal convictions. Nor does it allow us to determine how many people were "informally" arrested or detained pursuant to Wanteds.

2. The Individual Plaintiffs2
A. Dwayne Furlow

Dwayne Furlow had two Wanteds issued for his arrest. On November 11, 2015, SLCPD Officer Christopher Partin and another officer were dispatched to the home of Furlow's neighbor. Furlow was not present when the officers arrived. The neighbor reported that Furlow forcefully took her phone and struck her in the head after she tried to record a fight between their sons. Officer Partin canvassed the neighborhood for witnesses, eventually speaking to a 16-year-old neighbor who said he observed the altercation involving Furlow. The 16-year-old told Officer Partin that he did not see who started the fight, but he did see Furlow take the phone from the neighbor. While Officer Partin was conducting his investigation at the scene, one of Furlow's children handed a cell phone to him. Furlow was on the phone. Officer Partin asked Furlow to return home for questioning, but Furlow refused. Officer Partin told Furlow that refusal to return for questioning would result in the issuance of a Wanted. Later that day, Officer Partin issued the Wanted. The Wanted was cancelled about a month later, on December 12, 2015, when Furlow and his counsel appeared at the St. Louis County Justice Center in Clayton, Missouri, and Officer Partin issued a summons to Furlow for the alleged assault and larceny.

The following month, on January 25, 2016, SLCPD Officer Kevin Walsh responded to a 911 call at Furlow's home for a suspected domestic assault. Furlow was not present when Officer Walsh arrived. Officer Walsh found Latoya Furlow (Furlow's wife), who claimed she had been assaulted by Furlow. Officer Walsh's report included Latoya's claims that Furlow knocked her to the ground, dragged her by the hair, and then drove away as she was calling the police. Officer Walsh perceived Latoya to be angry, nervous, and fearful, but did not note in his report any bruising or evidence of other physical harm on Latoya.

Meanwhile, Officer Partin searched the residence for Furlow. While in the residence, he observed a fully-loaded AR-15 in plain view. Latoya claimed she owned the rifle, explaining that she had purchased it because Furlow was on probation. When Officer Walsh spoke to Furlow on the phone and told him about the investigation, Furlow reportedly informed Officer Walsh that he would not turn himself in for fear of being incarcerated. Officer Walsh advised Furlow that he would issue a Wanted for domestic assault in the third degree and domestic peace disturbance. Officer Walsh then entered the Wanted. The next day, Latoya called Officer Walsh and recanted her statements. Officer Walsh asked her to come to the precinct to give a written statement, but she never showed up to retract her statement.

On January 28, 2016, Furlow was stopped for a traffic violation and was ultimately arrested on the outstanding Wanted. Furlow was held for 24 hours and 28 minutes despite SLCPD's policy of holding suspects of domestic violence for no more than 24 hours. No warrant was ever issued.

B. Ralph Torres

On December 16, 2014, Detective Laura Clements of the SLCPD Child Abuse Unit began an investigation into Ralph Torres. Torres' ex-wife had previously filed a report with the Department of Social Services-Children's Division ("DSS") reporting that Torres had sexually abused his minor daughter. While DSS was continuing its investigation of Torres, Detective Clements conducted a parallel investigation unsuccessfully attempting to speak with Torres who directed Detective Clements to talk to his attorney. When efforts to contact Torres' attorney proved unsuccessful, Detective Clements issued a Wanted for Torres on February 23, 2015, more than two months after the first complaint. On March 30, 2015, DSS completed its investigation, which was closed based on a finding of insufficient...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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