Warren v. Goza
| Docket Number | 3:20-cv-79-DPM |
| Decision Date | 03 October 2022 |
| Parties | STEVEN V. WARREN, PLAINTIFF v. GERALD GOZA, Police Chief, City of Egypt, Individually and in his Official Capacity; CITY OF EGYPT; JERRY COOK, Mayor, Individually and in his Official Capacity; and VELVA JOY LINGO, Clerk/Record for City of Egypt, Individually and in her Official Capacity, DEFENDANTS |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas |
AMENDED ORDER
1. The many claims in this case arise from encounters between a citizen and some city officials in Egypt, Arkansas, a small town a few miles southwest of Jonesboro. Steven Warren is a long-time resident and former seasonal employee of Egypt. Warren grew concerned about allegations that Egypt was operating a speed trap. He began looking into city officials' backgrounds, making Freedom of Information Act requests, attending city council meetings, and posting on social media about city officials and their interactions with him. He was fired in 2019. He began to question the credentials of the Egypt chief of police, Gerald Goza. Warren learned that Chief Goza had been fired from police departments in neighboring towns before Egypt's mayor Jerry Cook, hired Goza in 2017. Warren says that Chief Goza, Mayor Cook, and the city clerk, Velva "Joy" Lingo, conspired to prevent him from presenting his findings to the city council. He also contends that they retaliated against him-by having him arrested twice and by filing orders of protection against him. He faults Egypt for having poor policies, providing inadequate training, and exercising inadequate oversight. He has sued these three city officials, as well as Egypt itself. Appendix A lists Warren's many federal and state claims by defendant, as well as the Court's rulings on the motion for summary judgment by the officials and Egypt.
With one caveat, where some genuine dispute of material fact exists, the Court has taken the record in the light most favorable to Warren. Oglesby v. Lesan, 929 F.3d 526, 532 (8th Cir. 2019). The caveat: This record contains several videos of Warren's encounters with Chief Goza, Clerk Lingo, and a deputy sheriff, whom Warren has not sued. When testimony by affidavit or deposition blatantly contradicts a video, the Court has accepted what the video shows as the truth about what happened. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007).
2. Some threshold points. Egypt and its officials prevail on Warren's Fifth Amendment, Eighth Amendment, and official capacity claims. The Fifth Amendment claims fail to state a claim because Warren hasn't named any federal defendants or alleged any federal action. Jackson v. Stair, 944 F.3d 704, 709 (8th Cir. 2019). Warren wasn't a convicted prisoner, so his Eighth Amendment claim must be analyzed under the Fourteenth Amendment. This distinction is for precision; these constitutional provisions offer Warren the same protection in the circumstances presented. Hott v. Hennepin County, 260 F.3d 901, 905 (8th Cir. 2001). Precedent in this circuit is clear that strip searches and cavity searches are constitutional. Story v. Foote, 782 F.3d 968, 971 (8th Cir. 2015). His substantive due process claims therefore fail as a matter of law. Warren's official capacity claims against Chief Goza, Mayor Cook, and Clerk Lingo duplicate his claims against the city of Egypt. Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165-66 (1985). These duplicative claims will be dismissed without prejudice.
3. All the false arrest claims turn on whether Chief Goza had arguable probable cause to arrest Warren. If it existed, Chief Goza is entitled to qualified immunity for the arrests. Brown v. City of St. Louis, 40 F.4th 895, 901 (8th Cir. 2022). Even if Chief Goza was operating under a mistaken belief that Warren had committed a criminal offense, he remains entitled to qualified immunity if his mistake was objectively reasonable in the circumstances at the time of the arrests. Quraishi v. St. Charles County, 986 F.3d 831, 836 (8th Cir. 2021). Whether arguable probable cause existed is a question of law. Hosea v. City of St. Paul, 867 F.3d 949, 955 (8th Cir. 2017).
The 13 August 2019 Arrest.
The day before and the morning of his first arrest, Warren submitted several written FOIA requests to Clerk Lingo. Among other things, Warren sought documents from Chief Goza's personnel file, including copies of "preemployment records" and any complaints by town citizens made against him. Doc. 24-8 & 24-13. He followed up in person at city hall, making additional oral requests to Clerk Lingo to review public records.
Warren and Clerk Lingo dispute the nature of their encounter. But the videos show much of what happened that morning. They record that Warren and Clerk Lingo disagreed about whether Warren had the right to review immediately any available records covered by his FOIA requests. Warren settled in at a table in the city hall lobby, unpacking his computer, water bottle, and other items. His voice was raised, but Warren remained respectful and minded his manners, never failing to say "please" and "thank you, ma'am" when appropriate. He never got unruly. Warren was vexed by Clerk Lingo's responses to his requests. He became a bit agitated. Clerk Lingo was patient and calm at first. She knew Warren well. And she knew he had hearing difficulties. As the encounter continued, though, she grew weary of dealing with Warren. She retreated to her office and closed the door.
Unsure how to handle the situation, Clerk Lingo made four calls: (1) to the city attorney; (2) to Mayor Cook; (3) to Chief Goza, who did not answer; and (4) to 911. It was approximately fifteen minutes after Warren arrived at city hall, asking to inspect the records, that Clerk Lingo called 911. She told the dispatcher that she was alone at city hall and that there was a white male "causing a scene and refusing to leave." Doc. 24-21. The dispatcher notified Chief Goza, who then called Lingo to tell her he was on his way. Chief Goza also knew Warren well.
Craighead County Deputy Sheriff Jerry Roth was closer than Chief Goza to city hall and got there first. He spoke briefly with Clerk Lingo in her office, and then returned to the main room. He asked Warren about his FOIA requests. Chief Goza arrived at city hall as Deputy Roth and Warren were speaking. Goza accused Warren of having raised his voice at Clerk Lingo. Warren replied that he had the encounter "on tape," and he told Chief Goza that if he had raised his voice, it was due to his impaired hearing. Deputy Roth asked Warren why he needed the FOIA information he'd requested, but Warren refused to tell him. Chief Goza told Deputy Roth: "We've been having trouble with [Warren] . . . and the mayor's wanting him arrested because he has been threatening her." At that time, Lingo approached. She and Chief Goza went to her office to speak, while Warren and Deputy Roth remained in the lobby area. When Chief Goza returned, he immediately arrested Warren for disorderly conduct and escorted him out of city hall.
Chief Goza's subjective reason for arresting Warren makes no legal difference. Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146,153-56 (2004). He is entitled to qualified immunity if he can demonstrate that arguable probable cause existed to arrest Warren for any criminal offense. Ibid.
Chief Goza argues that he had arguable probable cause to arrest Warren for disorderly conduct, obstructing governmental operations, or harassment.
Chief Goza testified on deposition that he arrested Warren for disorderly conduct after he observed Warren "screaming" loudly enough to be heard outside and "bumping up ... in a threatening manner, blowing up, and bouncing around," to a degree that the police "couldn't get him to calm down to talk" to them. Doc. 24-23 at 19. The video footage contradicts this version of events. Warren remained seated throughout the encounter with the officers. His voice was raised, but the volume wasn't unreasonable. To be sure, Warren was clearly agitated with the way events were unfolding. But his behavior was not disruptive enough either to violate Arkansas' disorderly conduct statute or to cause a reasonable officer to conclude that he might have violated the statute. ARK. CODE ANN. § 5-71-207; M.J. v. State, 2011 Ark.App. 171, 381 S.W.3d 880 (2011); Thurairajah v. City of Fort Smith, 925 F.3d 979,983-84 (8th Cir. 2019). Public servants must be patient with everyone they encounter, especially with those such as Warren who try that patience. On this record, Chief Goza did not have arguable probable cause to arrest Warren for disorderly conduct.
The videos also undermine Chief Goza's contention that he had arguable probable cause to arrest Warren for obstructing governmental operations. ARK. CODE ANN. § 5-54-102. Warren didn't obstruct the officers' ability to question him. One video shows that when Deputy Roth asked him who he was, Warren replied that he was a citizen making a FOIA request. Deputy Roth did not press the issue. By the time the Deputy had finished talking to Clerk Lingo, he knew Warren's identity. After that, Warren answered Deputy Roth's questions about why he was at city hall. At one point, Warren told Roth he did not want to have any further conversation. But, Warren continued answering the Deputy's questions even after he said he didn't want to do so. Doc. 24-16 at 7:48-8:55. On this record, Chief Goza hasn't established that he or Deputy Roth witnessed any behavior by Warren that would provide arguable probable cause to support an arrest for obstructing governmental operations.
The last potentially applicable crime is harassment. ARK. CODE ANN. § 5-71-208. "A person commits the crime of harassment if, with purpose to harass, annoy, or alarm another person, without...
To continue reading
Request your trial