Lovins v. Korte
| Decision Date | 14 January 2019 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2:16-cv-00038-PLC |
| Parties | CINDY LOVINS, Plaintiff, v. SHERIFF STEPHEN KORTE, et al, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
This matter is before the Court1 on motion of Defendants Pike County, Missouri Sheriff Stephen Korte, Major Josh Baker, Deputy Josh Langley, and Detective Joseph Minor for summary judgment [ECF No. 26] on Plaintiff Cindy Lovins' claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for violations of her Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Deputies Baker, Langley and Minor argue they are entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct did not violate the Fourth Amendment based on (1) either consent or exigent circumstances and (2) clearly established law. Sheriff Korte contends he is entitled to summary judgment because: (1) the policy of the Pike County Sheriff's Department permits disposal of seized property only following the Pike County prosecuting attorney's instruction and the prosecuting attorney has not so instructed, and (2) Plaintiff has not exhausted her state law remedies. Defendants also request the Court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Missouri state law replevin claim.
Plaintiff Cindy Lovins lived with her son Jessy Lovins at 6500 Pike 457 in Curryville, Missouri on September 6, 2014.2 Curryville is located in Pike County, Missouri.3
James Dougherty and Plaintiff owned a home together.4 However, according to Plaintiff, Mr. Dougherty did not live with Plaintiff.5 On September 6, 2014, Mr. Dougherty was at Plaintiff's home because he brought "the grandkids" there.6
Sheriff Korte was the elected Sheriff of Pike County, Missouri, and was the policymaker for the Pike County Sheriff's Department ("the Department") during the relevant time period.7 Deputies Baker, Langley, and Minor were deputy sheriffs for Pike County, Missouri during the relevant time period.8
At approximately 9:10 p.m. on September 6, 2014, the Department dispatch received a 911 call from Plaintiff's home.9 The Occurrence Report for the call states that the Reporting Person (or "RP") was Jessy "Lovens [sic]."10 Jessy Lovins testified that he took sleeping medication and could not recall anything that happened on the night of September 6, 2014.11
The Department categorized the call as a "domestic dispute."12 The description in the Occurrence Report states:
RP stated that a Jim Dorty [sic] had a .22cal pistol in hand, and [was] very angry, had been drinking and yelling, RP stated that it is him[,] his mother, and 3 n[i]e[c]es and nephews[,] and Jim Dorty [sic] . . . at the address. RP stated that this had happened before in the past, and that Jim Dorty [sic] has a drinking problem.13
(footnote added). In response to the call, Deputies Baker, Langley and Minor, as well as Sergeant Brenden McPike and Deputy Jim Suchland,14 went to Plaintiff's home. In his deposition, Sergeant McPike testified he was dispatched to the Lovins' residence regarding a domestic dispute involving a firearm.15 Sergeant McPike also testified in his deposition that Plaintiff stated James Dougherty pointed a gun at her and her son, Jessy Lovins.16 Plaintiff denies that Mr. Dougherty pointed a gun at her or at Jessy Lovins on September 6, 2014.17
When Deputy Langley and Sergeant McPike arrived at Plaintiff's home, Deputy Suchland was speaking to Mr. Dougherty outside of the residence.18 Mr. Dougherty did not have a gun when Deputy Suchland initially approached him.19 The parties dispute whether Mr.Dougherty advised the responding officers that he had a prior felony conviction.20 Mr. Dougherty was arrested outside the home and placed in a patrol car.21
After Mr. Dougherty was secured inside a Department patrol car,22 Pike County deputies, including Deputies Baker, Langley and Minor, searched Plaintiff's home on September 6, 2014. Prior to searching Plaintiff's home, no Pike County deputy obtained a warrant.
The parties dispute whether Plaintiff consented to the warrantless entry into and search of her home.23 During the September 6th search of Plaintiff's home, Sergeant McPike and Deputies Baker, Langley and Minor seized multiple weapons, including the .22 caliber pistol (subsequently identified as a Smith & Wesson pistol) that Mr. Dougherty allegedly used during the reported incident, a large amount of ammunition and various other weapon-related items, and several items not related to weapons.24
Following Mr. Dougherty's arrest outside Plaintiff's home and the seizure of guns inside Plaintiff's home on September 6, 2014, the Pike County prosecuting attorney charged Mr. Dougherty with seventeen counts of unlawful possession of a firearm, one count of domesticassault, and one count of armed criminal action.25 Subsequently, Mr. Dougherty entered into a plea agreement with the Pike County prosecuting attorney.26 More specifically, in exchange for the prosecuting attorney's dismissal of all other charges, Mr. Dougherty pleaded guilty to two unlawful-possession-of-a-firearm charges, one involving the Smith & Wesson pistol used in the September 6, 2014 incident and one involving a "Stoeger Coach gun .410."27 In accordance with the plea agreement, the Circuit Court of Pike County suspended the imposition of Mr. Dougherty's sentence and placed him on probation for five years.28
As part of Mr. Dougherty's plea agreement, the Pike County prosecuting attorney agreed, as represented in a letter from him to Mr. Dougherty's defense counsel, to return the seized weapons to an individual who signed a statement: (1) affirming ownership of the weapons and (2) promising not to release the weapons to Mr. Dougherty and not to allow him to possess the weapons.29 In his deposition, Mr. Dougherty stated he did not own any of the seized weapons.30
On September 8, 2014, the Missouri State Highway Patrol ("MSHP") and the Department searched Plaintiff's home.31 The Department seized various items, but no weapons, during theSeptember 8th search.32
MSHP Corporal D. A. Bickel testified in his deposition that, during the September 8th search he found and seized a "white powder substance" that, in his experience, looked like evidence of "[p]ossible drug usage."33 When he field-tested the "white powder substance" it tested "positive for the presence" of an illegal drug.34 Consequently, Corporal Bickel then arrested Plaintiff for possession of a controlled substance.35
Following Plaintiff's arrest, the Pike County prosecuting attorney charged her with felony possession of cocaine.36 In connection with her criminal case, Plaintiff filed a motion to suppress evidence seeking suppression of "evidence of drugs found as a result of an illegal search."37 The text of the motion includes statements that:
(Footnote added). On April 8, 2015, the Pike County prosecuting attorney dismissed the criminal case against Plaintiff after a laboratory test revealed that the substance confiscated by the MSHP on September 8, 2014, was not an illicit drug.39
Sheriff Korte testified in his deposition that the Department retains seized property until it receives authorization from the Pike County prosecuting attorney to release the property.40 Sheriff Korte explained that the Department "typically" requests the release of property through the prosecuting attorney's office and is "required" to wait for a directive by the prosecuting attorney or a judicial order to release or destroy any evidence the Department seizes, whether it is contraband or not.41 Sheriff Korte stated that "the prosecutor reviews [the paperwork the Department submits] to see [if the seized property] no longer [has] any evidentiary value, at which point in time he forwards it to a judge" for an order releasing the property.42
According to Sheriff Korte, the Department policy follows a Missouri statute for the disposition of seized property. The statute requires the Department to submit to the prosecuting attorney a request for disposition of seized property.43 Although during his deposition Sheriff Korte could not remember the specific relevant statutory provision,44 he later clarified, in response to Plaintiff's statement of facts, that Section 542.301 is the basis for the Department's"official policy."45 Sheriff Korte testified that, at the time he answered interrogatories for this lawsuit, the Department "had over 300 requests filed with the prosecut[ing attorney]'s office" seeking release of retained property.46
When asked if a person with an interest in seized property could challenge seizure of the property through the Department, Sheriff Korte testified in his deposition that there is no Department procedure in place allowing a person to challenge the seizure directly with respect to the Department.47 According to Sheriff Korte, the Department refers individuals contacting the Department about seized property to the prosecuting attorney's office.48 Sheriff Korte further testified that the Department provides to the person from whom property is seized a record of the property the Department seized.49
To continue reading
Request your trial