Hoyland v. McMenomy
| Decision Date | 28 August 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. 16-2222,16-2222 |
| Citation | 869 F.3d 644 |
| Parties | Brian Thomas HOYLAND, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shawn MCMENOMY; Henry Cho; Alex Eckstein, individually and in their official capacities, Defendants-Appellants, Ryan Coughlin, individually; City of Rosemount, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Frederick J. Goetz, Goetz & Eckland, Minneapolis, MN for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jason Michael Hiveley, Jon K. Iverson, Iverson & Reuvers, Bloomington, MN for Defendants-Appellants.
Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
Brian Hoyland awoke one evening to the sights and sounds of police officers standing with guns drawn in front of his home. He saw his wife, a handicapped woman, standing in the driveway with her arms raised in the air. He then heard someone yell "shoot" or "shooting." Hoyland quickly turned on the porch light, opened the front door, stood in his doorway, and screamed at the officers, who stood 30-40 feet away. The officers ordered him back inside. He remained in his doorway and approximately thirty seconds after he opened the door to his home, an officer declared him to be under arrest. Officers proceeded to his doorway where Hoyland was taken into custody and eventually charged with obstructing legal process pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 609.50, a charge later dismissed for lack of probable cause.
Hoyland has brought suit against the police officers for violating his First and Fourth Amendment rights. The officers have asserted the defense of qualified immunity. The district court1 rejected this defense on both claims. After a careful review of the facts, we affirm.
"We review a district court's qualified immunity determination on summary judgment de novo, viewing the record in the light most favorable to [Hoyland] and drawing all reasonable inferences in [his] favor." Gilani v. Matthews , 843 F.3d 342, 347 (8th Cir. 2016) () (internal quotation marks omitted). We also "accept[ ] as true the facts that the district court found were adequately supported, as well as the facts the district court likely assumed." Shekleton v. Eichenberger , 677 F.3d 361, 365 (8th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Rosemount, Minnesota police received reports of drag racing in the early hours of May 8, 2013. Officers Shawn McMenomy and Alex Eckstein, driving in separate squad cars, responded to the scene of these reports. As he drove, McMenomy saw a vehicle driving toward him and away from the scene. McMenomy swung a U-turn in the road and proceeded to follow the car—a Corvette. He had not, as of yet, witnessed any traffic violations. But he ran the vehicle's license plate and discovered the Corvette was registered to Mark Illetschko, who had no outstanding warrants. Continuing to follow the Corvette, McMenomy observed its tires partially cross the road's center dividing line. In response, McMenomy activated his emergency lights, but the Corvette did not pull over. Instead, the Corvette continued driving and turned into a residential neighborhood before finally pulling into the driveway of a house (the home of Brian Hoyland) and stopped. During this "chase," which lasted about 40 seconds, McMenomy claims the Corvette visibly accelerated in an apparent attempt to flee. The district court concluded that the vehicle never exceeded 40 miles per hour as it traveled a distance of one quarter mile from the time McMenomy activated his lights until reaching Hoyland's driveway.
After stopping in the driveway, the driver of the Corvette, Illetschko, began to exit the vehicle. He was ordered to remain in the vehicle by McMenomy, who had parked his squad car behind the Corvette. The officer had his service weapon drawn and pointed at Illetschko. Officer Eckstein now arrived, parked his squad car near McMenomy's, and drew his service weapon. McMenomy next ordered Illetschko to exit the vehicle with his hands up and walk backwards toward the squad cars. Illetschko obeyed without any resistance. Around this time Officers Henry Cho and Ryan Coughlin arrived on scene. Coughlin took Illetschko into custody and handcuffed him. The officers then shifted their attention to the vehicle's passenger, Christina Hoyland, and ordered her to exit the vehicle with her hands in the air. The district court determined that Christina "by-and-large followed the Officers' commands, but did direct verbal criticism—including profanity—at them in the process." One of the messages Christina tried to convey was that she could not walk backwards as the officers commanded because she suffers paralysis in one of her legs.
All of this commotion awoke Brian Hoyland, who had been asleep inside the house. Out of concern for their safety, Hoyland moved his children to the back of the house and retrieved a cell phone to record the incident outside. He intended to remain inside but changed his mind when he believed he heard the officers yell "shoot" or "shooting." He proceeded to switch the porch light on, open his front door, and hold his phone, which was recording, out in front of him.
Hoyland stood in his doorway, about 30-40 feet away from the officers and Christina. All four officers on the scene briefly turned their attention to him. McMenomy and Cho kept their attention on Hoyland while Coughlin and Eckstein quickly returned their focus to Illetschko and Christina. Within seconds, an officer shouted, "Drop the camera!" McMenomy yelled at Hoyland to go back inside the house. Hoyland remained where he stood and began screaming at the officers. He shouted, "You are in my yard!" and Hoyland also yelled that his wife was handicapped and demanded that the officers do their jobs "the right way." McMenomy again ordered Hoyland to "stay inside." Immediately following this command, with Hoyland remaining in the doorway, "the arrest decision was made" by McMenomy who shouted "you are under arrest," and ordered Hoyland to raise his hands. About thirty seconds of time elapsed between Hoyland's emergence from his house into the doorway and McMenomy's pronouncement that he was under arrest. Hoyland did not resist, raised his hands and laid down on the ground, following the instructions given by the officers. He was taken into custody by McMenomy and Cho without incident.
Meanwhile, Coughlin and Eckstein continued to deal with Illetschko and Christina. Coughlin was in the process of putting a handcuffed Illetschko in the back of the squad car when Hoyland first appeared. Coughlin secured Illetschko in the squad car before he turned his attention to Hoyland. As McMenomy and Cho arrested Hoyland, Coughlin approached the house and closed the front door that Hoyland had exited. Coughlin next joined Eckstein, who had remained focused on Christina after "very briefly" shifting his attention after Hoyland had first stepped out. Shortly after Hoyland was secure, Coughlin and Eckstein took Christina into custody without incident. The entire encounter, from the moment Hoyland opened his door until both he and Christina were in police custody, lasted no more than two and a half minutes.
Throughout this encounter, Hoyland never left the area around his front door, failing to ever come closer than 30-40 feet from the officers. He never told his wife or Illetschko to disobey the officers' commands. He never ran away or resisted the officers as he himself was arrested. Finally, he never physically intervened, and never attempted to physically intervene, in the arrest of anyone.
After taking Hoyland into custody, the officers placed him in the back of a squad car. Eckstein issued Hoyland a citation for obstruction of legal process. He did so under the instruction of Cho and Coughlin, not because he had seen anything amounting to obstruction. Eckstein told Hoyland he was being charged with obstruction. Hoyland, who had served for a time in the military police, admitted he had made the situation worse for the officers. But Hoyland repeatedly told Eckstein that he came outside to inform the officers of his wife's disability.
Hoyland subsequently challenged the obstruction charge in county court and argued that the officers lacked probable cause to arrest him. The judge agreed and dismissed the charge, holding that:
[Hoyland's] actions did not constitute the crime of Obstruction of Legal Process. It is clear from the video recording obtained from [Hoyland's] cell phone that [Hoyland] exited his residence with the sole intent to inform officers his wife was disabled and unable to comply with their commands, and to record the incident for possible future use as evidence if the officers engaged in any improper conduct. The recording also shows that within seconds of [Hoyland's] exiting the residence, the officers were aware the object he held was a camera. The entire encounter with [Hoyland] lasted approximately one minute, during which time [Hoyland] consistently attempted to communicate his wife was disabled. [Hoyland's] conduct amounted to nothing more than a fleeting interruption of the officers' performance of their duties without any intent to cause such an interruption. Accordingly, there is not probable cause to sustain the charge and the charge is dismissed.
Hoyland subsequently brought an action under 28 U.S.C. § 1983 against McMenomy, Cho, and Eckstein for violating his First and Fourth Amendment rights.2 He also asserted a state law claim for malicious prosecution against those three officers. Before the district court, Hoyland moved for partial summary judgment as to his Fourth Amendment claim. The officers, asserting the defense of qualified immunity, sought summary judgment on all of the claims made against them.
The district court denied the officers' motion as to the First and Fourth Amendment claims. The court reasoned that genuine issues of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burbridge v. City of St. Louis, 4:17-CV-02482-SRC
...in part by the exercise of the protected activity;" and (4) "lack of probable cause or arguable probable cause." Hoyland v. McMenomy , 869 F.3d 644, 655 (8th Cir. 2017) (quoting Peterson v. Kopp , 754 F.3d 594, 602 (8th Cir. 2014) ). Under the third prong, "[r]etaliation need not have been ......
-
Morales v. Maxwell
...outside the Third Circuit further demonstrates that the right at issue here is clearly established. For example, in Hoyland v. McMenomy , 869 F.3d 644 (8th Cir. 2017), the court similarly denied qualified immunity on a First Amendment retaliation claim where the defendants sought to constru......
-
Quraishi v. St. Charles Cnty.
...activity had to motivate Anderson's conduct. Quraishi , 2019 WL 2423321, at *6-*8. See Baribeau , 596 F.3d at 481 ; Hoyland v. McMenomy , 869 F.3d 644, 657 (8th Cir. 2017). To support its conclusion that the reporters had alleged enough about causation to survive summary judgment, the distr......
-
Chestnut v. Wallace
...officers did not have qualified immunity to arrest a man who had watched officers arrest his wife and even shouted at them. 869 F.3d 644, 654–55 (8th Cir. 2017). We acknowledged that the man "was shouting criticisms at the officers" while they tried to effect an arrest, but we adverted to t......