Hinkle v. Beckham Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners
| Decision Date | 22 June 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 18-6202,18-6202 |
| Citation | 962 F.3d 1204 |
| Parties | Laramie Sterling HINKLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, and Jarrod Hinkle, Plaintiff, v. BECKHAM COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; Scott Jay, in his individual capacity; Strider Estep, Deputy Sheriff, in his individual capacity, Defendants - Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Brently C. Olsson (Mark S. Rains with him on the briefs), of Cheek Law Firm, PLLC, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff-Appellant, Laramie Hinkle.
Wellon B. Poe (Jamison C. Whitson with him on the brief), of Collins Zorn & Wagner, P.C., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Defendants-Appellees, Scott Jay and Strider Estep.
Carson C. Smith (Robert S. Lafferrandre with him on the brief), of Pierce Couch Hendrickson Baysinger & Green, L.L.P., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Defendant-Appellee, Beckham County Board of County Commissioners.
Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, PHILLIPS, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.
A series of coincidences and mistaken beliefs led to the arrest of Laramie Hinkle for possessing a stolen trailer that was not even stolen. And things got worse from there. Despite Hinkle's recently having served as police chief in a nearby Oklahoma town and having voluntarily presented himself for booking, the sheriff's office immediately subjected him to a body-cavity strip search. Soon after that, the sheriff published a press release on his office's website chock full of incriminating allegations from the deputy's arrest-warrant affidavit. After further investigation showed Hinkle innocent, he sued, alleging as unlawful his arrest, the press release, and the body-cavity strip search. We sympathize with Hinkle. But we conclude that the deputy sheriff had probable cause for the arrest, that the deputy arrested Hinkle based on that probable cause, and that the district court did not err in dismissing Hinkle's claim that the sheriff issued the press release to retaliate against Hinkle. That said, we conclude that the body-cavity strip search was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. And because this unlawful search was based on the County's indiscriminate strip-search policy, we hold that the County is directly liable. Accordingly, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.
On November 6, 2012, Scott Jay defeated a challenger to win re-election as the Beckham County Sheriff. The next day, Laramie Hinkle resigned his office as the Chief of Police for Erick, Oklahoma, situated in Beckham County. Hinkle had supported Sheriff Jay's opponent during the campaign.1
In May 2013, Rod and Lynne Smith reported to the Beckham County Sheriff's Office that for the past two weeks someone had abandoned a trailer on their property. Mr. Smith told Deputy Strider Estep that Hinkle or Hinkle's father-in-law, Vaughn Keown, might own the trailer. Keown had recently done some work for the Smiths on their property.
Deputy Estep went to the Smiths’ property and viewed the trailer. He wrote down its vehicle identification number (VIN) and information from a trailer-dealership decal. Deputy Estep accessed the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database, but that revealed nothing suggesting that the trailer had been stolen. Next, after seeing its name on the decal, Deputy Estep called T-N-J Trailers, a South Carolina trailer dealership. A dealership representative told him that the Carpenter's Church in Anderson, South Carolina, had bought the trailer in 2001.
Deputy Estep called the church and told its pastor that "a trailer was located in [the] county and that he was trying to discover the owner[.]" Appellant's App. vol. 2 at 391. Deputy Estep described the trailer and provided its VIN. The next day, after "check[ing] into the matter," the pastor called Deputy Estep and confirmed that someone had stolen the trailer "from the church in 2003." Id. The pastor also told Deputy Estep that the church's insurer, the Palmetto Insurance Agency, had paid the church's claim for the stolen trailer. Finally, the pastor "asked Deputy Estep if the trailer was in Erick[,] Oklahoma." Id. When Deputy Estep confirmed that it was located "just outside Erick," the pastor "informed Deputy Estep that the only persons he could think of that would be in that area who might be in possession of the trailer were Laramie Hinkle or Vaughn Keown"—former members of the Carpenter's Church. Id.
With this information, Deputy Estep called the Anderson County Sheriff's Department about the 2003 trailer theft. That office confirmed the theft of a trailer as described but advised that its investigative report did not list a VIN for the trailer stolen from the Carpenter's Church.
Finally, Deputy Estep called the church's insurer, the Palmetto Insurance Agency. Its representative confirmed the pastor's account of the stolen trailer and its having paid the church's claim. Importantly, when Deputy Estep provided the Oklahoma trailer's VIN, the insurer told him that it matched the VIN of the stolen trailer.
Armed with this incriminating information, Deputy Estep ran a covert operation. On May 10, 2013, using the name "John Larson," Deputy Estep called Keown, who told him that Hinkle owned the trailer:
Appellee's Suppl. App. vol. 1 at 00:10–00:12, 01:24–03:10.
Again using the "John Larson" alias, Deputy Estep called Hinkle to ask about the trailer:
Appellant's App. vol. 5 at 1105–06. About an hour later, at Deputy Estep's direction, Beckham County Deputy Brett Moore stopped Hinkle's automobile. And about fifteen minutes after that, Deputy Estep arrived and identified himself to Hinkle as the phone caller, "John Larson." Deputy Estep read Hinkle the Miranda warning, obtained Hinkle's consent to record their conversation, and began questioning Hinkle about the trailer.
Hinkle immediately told Deputy Estep that he had understood "John Larson" to be asking about a different trailer on someone else's property:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kan. Motorcycle Works USA, LLC v. McCloud
...was delegated, and the deliberately indifferent failure to adequately train or supervise employees." Hinkle v. Beckham Cty. Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs , 962 F.3d 1204, 1239–40 (10th Cir. 2020) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).Kansas Motorcycle attempts to impose municipal liability......
-
Frey v. Town of Jackson
...we ask whether the totality of the circumstances, viewed objectively, justifies the arrest. Hinkle v. Beckham Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 962 F.3d 1204, 1220 (10th Cir. 2020). Even a minor crime, when committed in the presence of a police officer, makes an arrest constitutionally reasonable......
-
Frasier v. Evans
...(providing that an actionable conspiracy under § 1983 must involve an unlawful scheme or plan); cf. Hinkle v. Beckham Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs , 962 F.3d 1204, 1231 (10th Cir. 2020) ("For a valid § 1983 conspiracy claim, plaintiffs ‘must plead and prove not only a conspiracy, but also an ......
-
Bledsoe v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of the Cnty. of Jefferson
...Once a qualified immunity defense is raised, "plaintiff bears the burden of meeting these two prongs." Hinkle v. Beckham Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs , 962 F.3d 1204, 1219 (10th Cir. 2020). The court has discretion to determine "which of the two prongs of the qualified immunity analysis shoul......
-
Prisoners' Rights
...1142 (9th Cir. 2011) (cross-gender strip search unreasonable absent emergency circumstances); Hinkle v. Beckham Cty. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs, 962 F.3d 1204, 1235-38 (10th Cir. 2020) (strip search policy unreasonable where detainees searched before booking and deciding whether detainees placed i......