Riggs v. Gibbs

• Decision Date: 29 September 2017
• Docket Number: No. 14-0676-CV-W-FJG,14-0676-CV-W-FJG
• Citation: Riggs v. Gibbs, No. 14-0676-CV-W-FJG (W.D. Mo. Sep 29, 2017)
• Parties: MICAH B. RIGGS, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT GIBBS, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri

MICAH B. RIGGS, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT GIBBS, et al., Defendants.

No. 14-0676-CV-W-FJG

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION

September 29, 2017

ORDER

Pending before the Court are (1) Defendant Gary Majors' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 158); (2) Motion for Summary Judgment for Defendants Kansas City Missouri Board of Police Commissioners, Gibbs, Onik, Dumit, Whaley, Toigo, Taylor, Barbour, Feagans and Martin (Doc. No. 160); and (3) Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Defendants' Liability (Doc. No. 156). As an initial matter, plaintiff's request for oral argument will be denied.

I. Background

Plaintiff filed the pending action on August 1, 2014. Plaintiff's amended complaint was filed on February 24, 2015 (Doc. No. 43). Plaintiff Micah Riggs is the former owner of a business named "Coffee Wonk" located in midtown, Kansas City. On three separate occasions, certain of defendants searched plaintiff's business, allegedly finding synthetic marijuana. Plaintiff was prosecuted in state court for (1) intent to create a controlled substance; (2) possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to distribute; and (3) possession with intent to distribute the controlled substance JWH-018. Prior to trial, the possession of drug paraphernalia charge was dropped. Plaintiff was acquitted of possession with intent to distribute JWH-018, and had a hung jury on intent to create a controlled substance. The prosecutor's office subsequently dropped the charge for intent to create a controlled substance. Plaintiff has filed the current action, challenging the legality of the searches and other actions taken by defendants.

Defendants Alvin Brooks (hereinafter, "Commissioner Brooks"), Michael Rader (hereinafter, "Commissioner Rader"), Angela Wasson-Hunt (hereinafter, "Commissioner Hunt"), David Kenner (hereinafter, "Commissioner Kenner"), and Mayor Sly James (hereinafter, "Commissioner James") are sued in their official capacities as duly appointed members of the Board of Police Commissioners of Kansas City, Missouri. Defendant Gary Majors was at all relevant times the manager of Regulated Industries of Kansas City, Missouri. Defendant Detectives Robert Gibbs, Chris Onik, Alan Whaley, Teddy Taylor, and Christopher Toigo are sued in their individual and official capacities. Defendant Sergeant Brad Dumit is sued in his individual and official capacities. Defendant Officers Jason Martin, Michael Feagans, and David Barbour are sued in their individual and official capacities.

Plaintiffs' amended complaint contains seven counts: Count I: Claim Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Malicious Prosecution, Illegal Search and Seizure, Filing of Falsified Court Documents, and Forging Consent to Search Forms (Against Gary Majors and Detectives Gibbs, Whaley, Onik, Dumit, Toigo, and Taylor, Officers Martin, Barbour, and Feagans, and The Board of Police Commissioners of Kansas City, Missouri); Count II: Claim Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Conspiracy (Against Gary Majors and Detectives Gibbs, Whaley, Onik, and Dumit, and Officer Martin); Count III: Claim Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Conspiracy (Against Detectives Toigo and Taylor, and Officers Barbour and Feagans); Count IV: Claim Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Violative Policies, Practices and Procedures (Against The Board of Police Commissioners of Kansas City, Missouri); Count V: Claim Under Missouri Common Law for Malicious Prosecution (Against Gary Majors and Detectives Gibbs, Whaley, Onik, Dumit, Toigo, and Taylor, Officers Martin, Feagans, and Barbour, and The Board of Police Commissioners of Kansas City,Missouri); Count VI: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (Against Detectives Gibbs, Onik, Dumit, and Martin); and Count VII: Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (Against Detectives Whaley, Gibbs, Onik, Dumit, and Martin).

II. Facts

A. Introduction

Mr. Riggs brings this § 1983 claim against Defendants for violations of his Fourth Amendment Rights, malicious prosecution, and various other claims. In 2009, Mr. Riggs opened Coffee Wonk, a business at 3535D Broadway, Kansas City, MO 64111, which sold coffee, herbal incense, and potpourri. Mr. Riggs owned another business, the Wonk Exchange smoke shop, in the same building. Mr. Riggs also rented an office room, Suite 201, one floor above Coffee Wonk. On three separate occasions certain Defendants searched Mr. Riggs' businesses and seized his property. On September 27, 2010, Detectives Christopher Toigo and Teddy Taylor seized Syn incense from Coffee Wonk. That same day, Officers David Barbour and Michael Feagans entered and/or searched Suite 201. On October 3, 2012, Sergeant Brad Dumit, Detectives Robert Gibbs and Chris Onik raided Coffee Wonk without a warrant and seized all of Mr. Riggs' inventory. On February 11, 2013, Detective Gibbs obtained a search warrant for Coffee Wonk, which was executed on February 12, 2013.

All of the raids involved allegations that Mr. Riggs was selling "K2"— which he asserts he was not. "K2" is a slang term for several controlled substances. K2 is also a brand name for a product that previously contained JWH- 018. K2 itself is not illegal under the Missouri Revised Statutes. See R.S. MO. § 195.017.

B. The September 27, 2010, Incidents

i. Defendants Feagans and Barbour

On September 27, 2010, Officers Barbour and Feagans received a burglary call for a business at 3535 Broadway. Some office spaces had broken glass fronts, and there was yellow powder everywhere from a fire extinguisher up and down the hallways. It appeared also that other units were damaged, although plaintiff disputes that Suite 201 was damaged. When they arrived, they proceeded to Suite 200 and interviewed the business owner, Julie Porter, who had reported the burglary. The officers investigated the burglary and were unable to find the perpetrator. A short time later, they met Christopher Long, the building manager for 3535 Broadway. After initially meeting Mr. Long, Officer Barbour began to search the second floor of the office suite.

Plaintiff asserts that Barbour asked Mr. Long to unlock the door to Suite 201. Defendants controvert this statement, saying that Mr. Long informed Officer Barbour that the occupant that owned the location with the robbery rented a suite and wanted Mr. Long to check on it. Plaintiff, on the other hand, argues that Mr. Long had made no statement to the police that would indicate that Mr. Riggs wanted the police to check on Suite 201. Plaintiff further states that he had not given permission to Mr. Long to open the door to the suite. Regardless, Mr. Long opened the door to the suite.

When Mr. Long opened the door to Suite 201, Officer Barbour saw lab equipment. Officer Barbour then contacted the Metro Meth Drug Task Force to process the lab. After the Task Force arrived, Officer Barbour provided security to the suite. The task force did not have plaintiff's consent to search Suite 201.

Prior to Mr. Long opening Suite 201, there were no signs of entry. Officer Feagans assumed that the burglar had left the office of Julie Porter. Officer Barbour had no specific reason to believe that the burglar was still in the building. Officer Barbour did not have his gun drawn during his search of the office complex with Mr. Long. When Officer Barbour first observed the lab, he did not see anything that led him to believe that it was illegal oran active meth lab. However, Defendant Barbour observed chemicals with a skull and cross-bone, and believed that they were dangerous, so he indicated he left the door open to vent. Jason Kennedy, a chemist who responded with the Task Force, did not know what type of a lab was in Suite 201.

Plaintiff does not dispute that the lab was not safe even though there were no open flames or bottles. Most of the chemicals in suite 201 were very unsafe to not have in the proper environment. There was a canister with a label that said it spontaneously ignited with air. There were several solvents that were highly flammable, and toxic reagents present, as well as others that if not handled properly would ignite if in contact with water or the wrong substance. Officers Barbour and Feagans decided it was better to contact somebody with more knowledge so they contacted Metro Meth. Items recovered from suite 201 tested positive for JWH-018. JWH-018 was considered a controlled substance (MO Statute §195.017).

ii. Defendants Toigo and Taylor

Also on September 27, 2010, Detective Toigo, who was assigned to the robbery unit, received a call that a robbery had occurred at Coffee Wonk. When Detective Toigo arrived, he interviewed the store clerk present for the robbery and began processing the scene. Det. Toigo looked behind the counter for fingerprints, and along the path of where the robbery suspect traveled. During his canvas, Detective Toigo went to the parking garage adjacent to the building and encountered Syn incense that had been stolen. Detective Taylor received a call from Detective Toigo, who informed Detective Taylor of the robbery and the Syn incense. Detective Yale Acton responded to the scene with Detective Taylor. At the scene, Detective Toigo showed Detective Taylor the packages of Syn incense behind the counter at Coffee Wonk.

At some point, Mr. Riggs arrived on the scene, and he and Detective Toigoengaged in casual conversation related to the robbery. During these discussions, Detective Toigo obtained a written consent to search from Mr. Riggs. Mr. Riggs asserts he was told this consent was for Wonk Exchange, but argues that Toigo or Taylor added "Suite 201" to the address after Mr. Riggs signed it. Defendants controvert that this is what occurred. Plaintiff asserts that later on, Detectives Toigo and Taylor forged his signature on a consent to search Wonk Exchange, misspelling his printed name as "Michah Riggs." Again, defendants controvert this argument, saying that defendant Taylor filled out the form completely, and did not sign plaintiff's...