Kuessner v. Wooten
| Decision Date | 26 December 2018 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:17-CV-57-AGF |
| Parties | SONIA KUESSNER, Plaintiff, v. JUSTIN WOOTEN, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
Plaintiff Sonia Kuessner filed this civil action seeking money damages for unreasonable seizure against Scott County Deputy Sheriff Justin Wooten under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The case is now before the Court on Wooten's motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 21. For the reasons set forth below, the motion for summary judgment will be granted.
The record establishes the following for the purpose of the motion before the Court.1 On the evening of October 22, 2016, Kuessner was a passenger in a motorvehicle being driven by Mitch Wood in Scott County, Missouri. Scott County Deputy Toby Haynes stopped the vehicle due to an inoperable headlight. Wood was taken into custody on an outstanding warrant for failure to pay a traffic ticket. Haynes informed Kuessner that Wood would be released if Kuessner obtained a money order, and Haynes provided directions to a facility where Kuessner could acquire one. After being unable to procure a money order at the facility that Haynes directed her to, Kuessner called the Scott County Sheriff's Department and was given directions to a different money order location. After getting the money order in Sikeston, Missouri, Kuessner drove it to the Scott County Sheriff's Office in Benton, Missouri.
Kuessner arrived at the Scott County Sheriff's Office around 4:00 a.m. on October 23, 2016. After entering the lobby, Kuessner informed a dispatcher over the intercom that she was there with a money order for Wood. The dispatcher then notified Wooten that a woman was in the lobby to pick up Wood. Kuessner had keys in one of her hands while she waited in the lobby. The subsequent details of Kuessner's arrest were recorded by Wooten's body camera: Wooten entered the lobby and greeted Kuessner. Kuessner was standing next to a service window in the lobby. There was one other person in the lobby—a male seated across the lobby from where Kuessner stood. Wooten informed Kuessner that since Wood was arrested for driving while intoxicated("DWI"),2 Wood had to be released to a sober person. Wooten then asked Kuessner, "Have you been drinking?" Kuessner responded: "I have had a couple of drinks." Wooten then asked Kuessner to take a preliminary breath test ("PBT"), gesturing with a piece of equipment in his hand, to determine her intoxication level. Wooten assured Kuessner that if Kuessner just blew .08, she would be "good." Kuessner declined to take the test, and Wooten then arrested her. Wooten told Kuessner that she was being arrested for driving while intoxicated because he could smell alcohol on her breath, her eyes were bloodshot, and she drove to the Sheriff's Office. Wooten had not observed Kuessner arriving to the Sheriff's Office, and Wooten did not administer any type of sobriety test on Kuessner before the arrest. The entire encounter between Kuessner and Wooten leading up to Kuessner's arrest lasted approximately 20 seconds.
In an affidavit submitted in support of his summary judgment motion, Wooten states that before arresting her, Wooten observed that Kuessner's eyes were bloodshot, watery, and glassy, and he smelled an odor of alcohol on Kuessner's breath. However, Wooten testified in a deposition in this case that the smell of alcohol on Kuessner at the time of the arrest was "faint." ECF No. 35-5 at 2, Wooten Dep. 15:1. Wooten also described Kuessner's speech at the time of arrest as "normal," her attitude as "polite and cooperative," and her balance and walking as "fair." Wooten Dep. 21:1-9, 22:4-6.Kuessner admits that when she was arrested her eyes were "likely" bloodshot3 and it is "possible" she smelled of alcohol. ECF No. 22-2 at 11, Kuessner Dep. 67:3-6, 15-20.
No formal charges were ever brought against Kuessner. However, Kuessner's mug shot was later made public, and her arrest was broadcast on local media. At the time, Kuessner was Superintendent of Schools for the Van Buren School District in Missouri.
Kuessner brings one count of unreasonable seizure against Wooten in his individual capacity only, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. According to Kuessner, Wooten arrested her without probable cause or other sufficient constitutional justification in violation of her Fourth Amendment right to be free from unlawful seizure. Kuessner alleges that as a direct and proximate result of Wooten's conduct, she suffered emotional harm and distress; monetary loss in that she was terminated as Superintendent; public humiliation and ridicule; and other damaging injuries.
Wooten seeks summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, arguing that the undisputed material facts demonstrate that he had probable cause to arrest Kuessner for violating Missouri's DWI statute. In addition, Wooten argues that Kuessner's action is barred by qualified immunity because at the very least, Wooten had "arguable probable cause" to arrest Kuessner. For probable cause to believe thatKuessner was intoxicated, Wooten points to the facts that Kuessner admitted to having had a couple of drinks; Wooten smelled alcohol on Kuessner's breath; Wooten observed Kuessner's eyes to be bloodshot, watery, and glassy; and Kuessner refused to take a PBT. For probable cause to believe that Kuessner had operated a vehicle while intoxicated, Wooten highlights the facts that Wooten observed Kuessner standing by herself in the lobby of the Sheriff's Office at 4:00 a.m. with a set of keys in her hands; and Wooten knew that a woman was at the Sheriff's Office to pick up Wood. Wooten argues that it was reasonable to infer from these facts that Kuessner operated a motor vehicle to get to the Sheriff's Office.
Kuessner disputes that summary judgment is proper here, arguing that Wooten did not have probable cause or arguable probable cause to believe that Kuessner had been operating a vehicle before he arrested her. Kuessner also disputes that the indicia of intoxication used by Wooten were sufficient to support even arguable probable cause for a DWI arrest.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 56(a) provides that summary judgment shall be granted "if the movant shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." "[T]he burden of demonstrating that there are no genuine issues of material fact rests on the moving party," and the court must view "the evidence and the inferences that may be reasonably drawn[therefrom] in the light most favorable to the non-moving party." Allard v. Baldwin, 779 F.3d 768, 771 (8th Cir. 2015). Mann v. Yarnell, 497 F.3d 822, 825 (8th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted).
"To defeat a motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, the plaintiff must put forth facts showing that the officer's conduct violated a constitutional right, and that the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct." Johnson v. Moody, 903 F.3d 766, 773 (8th Cir. 2018). "The district court has discretion to decide which of the two prongs of the qualified immunity analysis should be addressed first in light of the circumstances in the particular case at hand." Id.
"It is well established that a warrantless arrest without probable cause violates an individual's constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments." Hannah v. City of Overland, Mo., 795 F.2d 1385, 1389 (8th Cir. 1986). To determine whether an officer had probable cause for an arrest, courts "must examine the events leading up to the arrest, and then decide whether these historical facts, viewed from the standpoint of an objectively reasonable police officer, amount to probable cause." District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S.Ct. 577, 586 (2018) (citations omitted). "Probable cause is not a high bar." Id. "It requires only a probability or substantial chance ofcriminal activity, not an actual showing of such activity." Id. And "[b]ecause the qualified immunity privilege extends to a police officer who is wrong, so long as he is reasonable, the governing standard for a Fourth Amendment unlawful arrest claim is not probable cause in fact but arguable probable cause," meaning, "whether the officer should have known that the arrest violated plaintiff's clearly established right." Walker v. City of Pine Bluff, 414 F.3d 989, 992 (8th Cir. 2005).
In Wesby, the Supreme Court discussed the "clearly established" prong of the qualified immunity analysis in the Fourth Amendment context. A clearly established legal principle is one that has "a sufficiently clear foundation in then-existing precedent." Wesby, 138 S.Ct. at 589. "The rule must be settled law, which means it is dictated by controlling authority or a robust consensus of cases of persuasive authority." Id. at 589-90 (internal citation omitted).
But because in the Fourth Amendment context, "officers will often find it difficult to know how the general standard of probable cause applies," the Court in Wesby stressed "the need to identify a case where an officer acting under similar circumstances was held to have violated the Fourth Amendment." Id. at 590 (citation omitted). "While there does not have to be a case directly on point, existing precedent must place the lawfulness of the particular arrest beyond debate." Id. (citation omitted). Only in the "rare obvious case, where the unlawfulness of the officer's conduct is sufficiently clear" is the need to find existing...
To continue reading
Request your trial