Riis v. Shaver

Decision Date28 April 2020
Docket Number3:17-CV-03017-RAL
Citation458 F.Supp.3d 1130
Parties Jason RIIS, Cody Holcombe, Aaron Henning, Gena Alvarez, Dirk Sparks, and Aaron Peters, Plaintiffs, v. Matthew SHAVER, in his personal capacity; the City of Pierre; the City of Sisseton; Adam Woxland, former South Dakota Highway Patrol Trooper, in his official and individual capacities; Corporal Korey Ware, with the Sisseton Police Department, in his official and individual capacities; Mark Weibrecht, former South Dakota Highway Patrolman, in his official and individual capacities; the City of Wagner; the City of Wagner Police Department; Officer DesaRae Gravatt, City of Wagner Police Officer; Officer Brian McGuire, City of Wagner Police Officer; and Law Enforcement Officers James Does One through Six, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of South Dakota

James D. Leach, Attorney at Law, Rapid City, SD, Wm. Dane DeKrey, Pro Hac Vice, ACLU of North Dakota, Fargo, ND, Courtney A. Bowie, Pro Hac Vice, American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota, Sioux Falls, SD, for Plaintiffs Jason Riis, Cody Holcombe, Aaron Henning, Gena Alvarez, Dirk Sparks.

James D. Leach, Attorney at Law, Rapid City, SD, Wm. Dane DeKrey, Pro Hac Vice, ACLU of North Dakota, Fargo, ND, for Plaintiff Aaron Peters.

Justin L. Bell, Robert B. Anderson, May, Adam, Gerdes & Thompson LLP, Pierre, SD, for Defendants Former Patrolman Mark Weibrecht, Former SD Trooper Adam Woxland.

William P. Fuller, Fuller, Williamson, Nelsen & Preheim, LLP, Sioux Falls, SD, for Defendants Officer DesaRae' Gravatt, The City of Wagner, The City of Wagner Police Department, Officer Brian McGuire, Law Enforcement Officers James Does 1-6.

James E. Moore, Woods, Fuller, Shultz & Smith, PC, Sioux Falls, SD, for Defendants Matthew Shaver, The City of Pierre.

William C. Garry, Melissa R. Jelen, Cadwell Sanford Deibert & Garry, LLP, Sioux Falls, SD, for Defendant The City of Sisseton.

William C. Garry, Melissa R. Jelen, Cadwell, Sanford, Deibert & Garry, LLP, Sioux Falls, SD, for Defendant Corporal Korey Ware.

OPINION AND ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

ROBERTO A. LANGE, CHIEF JUDGE

The six Plaintiffs in this civil-rights action claim that they were illegally catheterized so that police could test their urine for drugs. After discovery, all the Defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims, and all the Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on their liability claims. For the reasons explained herein, this Court denies the Plaintiffsmotions for summary judgment, grants parts of the Defendantsmotions for summary judgment on certain claims and denies summary judgment on other claims because of the presence of genuine issues of material fact.

I. Facts

Both Plaintiffs and Defendants filed statements of undisputed material facts with their respective motions for summary judgment. Docs. 99, 100, 109, 115, 121. Plaintiffs then responded to Defendants’ statements of undisputed material facts in a single filing, Doc. 136, the groups of Defendants filed their own responses to Plaintiffs’ statements of undisputed material facts, Docs. 137, 138, 139, 142, and Plaintiffs filed a statement of material facts opposing Defendantsmotions for summary judgment, Doc. 134. Competing motions for summary judgment present a challenge to any court in setting forth pertinent facts, particularly when there are five different motions for summary judgment and some facts are only relevant to certain parties. Under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court must view the facts in the light most favorable to the non-movant, and the Plaintiffs and Defendants are both movants and non-movants here. This Court has taken care to draw facts not subject to genuine dispute from both Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ statements of undisputed material facts and at times sets forth exactly how the parties disagree on certain material facts. This Court also recognizes that some of the facts in the Plaintiffs’ statement of undisputed material facts are only relevant to certain Defendants.

A. Jason Riis

Not long after midnight in late March 2016, Pierre police officer Nathan Howell stopped a vehicle driven by Jason Riis for having an inoperable license-plate light. Doc. 109 at ¶ 19; Doc. 136 p.71 at ¶ 19; Doc. 99 at ¶ 74; Doc. 138 at ¶ 74.2 During the stop, Officer Howell noticed that Riis was "speaking very rapidly" and "gesturing very wildly." Doc. 109 at ¶ 20; Doc. 136 p.7 at ¶ 20; Doc. 99 at ¶ 74; Doc. 138 at ¶ 74. Officer Howell also saw the capped tips of hypodermic needles protruding from the purse of Riis's passenger, Amanda Cadwell, who had an active warrant for her arrest. Doc. 109 at ¶ 21; Doc. 136 p.7 at ¶ 21. A search of Cadwell's purse revealed several bags containing a white, crystalline substance that field tested positive for methamphetamine, as well as a green, leafy substance that Officer Howell thought smelled like marijuana. Doc. 109 at ¶ 21; 136 p.7 at ¶ 21. Riis agreed to some field sobriety tests, but his performance and behavior during these tests made Officer Howell believe that Riis had been driving while impaired. Doc. 109 at ¶¶ 22–23; Doc. 136 p.7 at ¶¶ 22–23. Officer Howell arrested Riis on suspicion of driving under the influence of a controlled substance. Doc. 109 at ¶ 25; Doc. 136 p.7 at ¶ 25.

Officer Howell drove Riis to the jail, where he asked Riis to voluntarily provide a urine sample. Doc. 109 at ¶ 26; Doc. 136 p.7 at ¶ 26. Riis refused, so Officer Howell drafted a search warrant and a supporting affidavit for Riis's blood and urine. Doc. 109 at ¶¶ 26–27; Doc. 136 p.7 at ¶¶ 26–27; Doc. 99 at ¶ 74; Doc. 138 at ¶ 74; Doc. 106-34. Officer Howell stated in the affidavit that he had found hypodermic needles, methamphetamine, and possibly marijuana in Riis's vehicle; that Riis spoke very rapidly and gestured wildly; that Riis failed field sobriety tests; and that Riis refused to voluntarily provide a urine sample. Doc. 109 at ¶ 27; Doc. 136 p.7 at ¶ 27; Doc. 106-34. Officer Howell's affidavit requested authority to search Riis for "Blood and Urine" but did not mention catheterization

. Doc. 106-34; Doc. 99 at ¶ 74; Doc. 138 at ¶ 74.

A state court judge issued a warrant that "commanded" law enforcement to search "[t]he person of Jason Riis" for "Blood and Urine." Doc. 124-30; Doc. 109 at ¶ 28; Doc. 136 p.7 at ¶ 28; Doc. 99 at ¶ 74; Doc. 138 at ¶ 74. When shown the search warrant around 3 a.m., Riis said that he would provide a urine sample but that he could not do so at the time. Doc. 109 at ¶ 29; Doc. 136 p.7 at ¶ 29; Doc. 99 at ¶ 75; Doc. 138 at ¶ 75. Officer Howell left the urine sample kit with the jailers, who promised to inform dispatch once Riis had been able to urinate. Doc. 99 at ¶ 76; Doc. 138 at ¶ 76; Doc. 136 p.7 at ¶ 29; Doc. 109 at ¶ 29. Officer Howell had no further contact with Riis until after he was catheterized. Doc. 99 at ¶ 76; Doc. 138 at ¶ 76.

Approximately twelve hours later, at 3:04 p.m., dispatch informed Pierre police officer Charles Swanson that Riis had yet to provide a urine sample at the jail. Doc. 109 at ¶ 30; Doc. 136 p.8 at ¶ 30. Officer Swanson met with Riis at the jail, and Riis said that he still couldn't urinate. Doc. 99 at ¶ 77; Doc. 138 at ¶ 77. According to Riis's testimony, Officer Swanson responded by saying "It's too late. We're going to the hospital to get catheterized," and then immediately drove Riis to Avera St. Mary's Hospital (Avera St. Mary's) in Pierre. Doc. 99 at ¶ 78; Doc. 138 at ¶ 78. Officer Swanson testified differently, saying that he told Riis that the alternative to being unable to urinate was for Riis to be catheterized. Doc. 99 at ¶ 77; Doc. 138 at ¶ 77. According to Officer Swanson, Riis then asked to be catheterized because he was unable to produce a sample. Doc. 99 at ¶ 77; Doc. 138 at ¶ 77; Doc. 106-37 at 2. Riis denied ever asking to be catheterized. Doc. 99 at ¶ 78; Doc. 138 at ¶ 78; Doc. 106-38 at 3. As Riis tells it, Officer Swanson said Riis was going to be catheterized because he would not voluntarily provide a urine sample. Doc. 99 at ¶ 78; Doc. 138 at ¶ 78; Doc. 106-38 at 3.

Officer Swanson drove Riis to Avera St. Mary's, where Riis informed hospital staff that he was still unable to urinate. Doc. 109 at ¶ 31; Doc. 136 p.8 at ¶ 31; Doc. 99 at ¶ 77; Doc. 138 at ¶ 77. Officer Swanson testified that Riis was "quite polite" during interactions. Doc. 106-37 at 3; Doc. 99 at ¶ 77; Doc. 138 at ¶ 77. He said that Riis was asked multiple times both at the jail and the hospital to provide a voluntary sample and each time he advised that he could not. Doc. 106-37 at 3; Doc. 99 at ¶ 77; Doc. 138 at ¶ 77.

After Riis told hospital staff that he could not urinate, Nurse Steve Cable catheterized Riis at around 3:20 p.m. Doc. 109 at ¶ 34; Doc. 136 p.8 at ¶ 34; Doc. 99 at ¶ 77; Doc. 138 at ¶ 77; Doc. 106-37 at 3. Riis did not tell hospital staff of his objection to being catheterized or his willingness to urinate voluntarily into a specimen container. Doc. 109 at ¶ 32; Doc. 136 p.8 at ¶ 32. Riis testified, however, that the reason he did not tell hospital staff of his willingness to give a voluntary urine sample was because Officer Swanson had already told him that it was "too late, that I was going to get catheterized." Doc. 136 p.8 at ¶ 32; Doc. 124-25 at 6. Riis also testified that Officer Swanson, at the request of staff, held Riis's penis during the catheterization

, and that there were between five and ten officers in the room while the procedure was performed. Doc. 136 p.8–9 at ¶ 34; Doc. 124-25 at 7.

Peter Maningas, a doctor at Avera St. Mary's, signed an order for Riis's catheterization

. Doc. 124-21 at 9; Doc. 109 at ¶ 33; Doc. 136 p.8 at ¶ 33, p.4 at ¶ 13. Dr. Maningas testified that he believed that warrants for a urine sample were "directed towards [staff at Avera St. Mary's] as well to help [police] comply with that order." Doc. 124-21 at 7; see also Doc. 124-21 at 6. This testimony prompted Plaintiffscounsel to ask Dr. Maningas...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT