Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-04-03279/USCOURTS-ca10-04-03279-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED ST ATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

May 24, 2005 

PATRICK FISHER 

Clerk 

DALEE. MCCORMICK; CURTIS A. 

KASTL, II, 

Plaintiffs - Appellants, 

V. 

CITY OF LAWRENCE, KANSAS; 

MIK SHANKS: SCOTT HOFER; 

WARREN BURKET; JUSTIN 

STIPANOVICH; DEAN BROWN; 

MIKE PATTRICK: KIRK FULTZ; 

MARK KNIGHT; LEO SOUDERS; 

JAMES WHITE; RON OLIN, Police 

Chief, 

Defendants - Appellees. 

No. 04-3279 

(D.C. No. 03-CV-2 I 95-GTV) 

(D. Kan.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before HENRY, ANDERSON, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of 

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the 

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court 

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order 

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 04-3279 Document: 010110642437 Date Filed: 05/24/2005 Page: 1
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1 (G). The case is 

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiffs Dale E. McCormick and Curtis A. Kastl, II, appeal the dismissal 

of their suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Lawrence, Kansas; the 

police chief; several police officers; and an assistant district attorney. The 

district court resolved the case in a series of detailed and thoughtful orders, 

dismissing certain claims and entering summary judgment on others. After 

construing the parties' filings liberally and reviewing the district court's orders de 

nova, we affirm. See Santana v. City of Tulsa, 359 F.3d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir. 

2004) (stating that this court applies de nova review to a district court's grant of 

summary judgment and Rule 12(b)(6) motions); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 

520-21 (1972) (requiring liberal construction of pro see pleadings). 

Background 

Plaintiffs consider themselves to be ··constitutional rights activists and 

vocal critics of the Lawrence, Ks., police department." Aplt. Br. at 1. They 

assert that one or both of them have verbally protested police activity on 

approximately fifty occasions. They recorded their protests of officers' 

conducting a sobriety checkpoint on June 28, 2002, and a traffic stop on July 13, 

2002. As a result of their activities, plaintiffs allege that police officers have 

retaliated by threatening plaintiffs with arrest, charging them with crimes, 

-2-

Appellate Case: 04-3279 Document: 010110642437 Date Filed: 05/24/2005 Page: 2
attacking them, searching their video and audio recording devices, and destroying 

tapes. 

The district court dismissed plaintiffs' claims of unreasonable search and 

seizure against police officers and malicious prosecution against an assistant 

district attorney. NfcCormick v. City of Lawrence, 289 F. Supp. 2d 1264, 1268-69 

(D. Kan. 2003) ( dismissing unreasonable search and seizure claims on qualified 

immunity grounds); McCormick v. City of Lawrence, No. Civ. A 03-2195-GTV, 

2003 WL 22466188, *6 (D. Kan. Aug. 14, 2003) ( dismissing assistant district 

attorney based on prosecutorial immunity). 

Later, it entered summary judgment on plaintiffs' remaining claims. 

McCormick v. City of Lawrence, 325 F. Supp. 2d 1191 (D. Kan. 2004 ). The court 

determined that plaintiffs· allegations did not meet the pattern or injury 

requirements of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 

18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968. Id. at 1208-09. It also decided defendants were entitled 

to qualified immunity on plaintiffs' constitutional claims. The First Amendment 

claims failed because plaintiffs' resort to personal epithets meant that they were 

'"engaged in 'fighting words,' rather than protected speech." Id. at 1201 ( citing 

Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 20 (1971 ); Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 

U.S. 568, 572 (1942)); see also id. at 1207. Concerning plaintiffs' claim that 

defendants destroyed some of their audio and video tapes, the court concluded 

-3-

Appellate Case: 04-3279 Document: 010110642437 Date Filed: 05/24/2005 Page: 3
that destruction of recordings was not a clearly established First Amendment 

violation. Id. at 1203-04, 1205-06. As to the Fourth Amendment claims, the 

officers had probable cause to arrest and search plaintiffs, as well as search and 

seize their recording devices, based on a probable violation of a city ordinance 

prohibiting interference with an officer's carrying out an official duty. Id. at 

1204-05. Moreover, the officer's "use of force was reasonable and commensurate 

with the resistance offered by Plaintiff McCormick," so there was no exercise of 

excessive force. Id. at 1205. Because plaintiffs failed to show constitutional 

violations on the part of police officers, the claims against the police chief and 

the municipality were dismissed as a matter of law. Id. at 1209. Having 

disposed of all of plaintiffs' federal claims, the court declined to exercise 

supplement jurisdiction over their state law claims. Id. at 1206. 

On appeal. plaintiffs argue that the district court erred in dismissing the 

unreasonable search of property and malicious prosecution claims. They also 

assert that summary judgment was improper because their verbal protests were 

"unequivocally cloaked in 'special protection' by the First Amendment, that such 

protection has been 'clearly established' for decades, and that no reasonable 

officer could perceive otherwise." Aplt. Br. at 16. 

Having reviewed the briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we conclude 

that the district court correctly decided this case. We therefore AFFIRM the 

-4-

Appellate Case: 04-3279 Document: 010110642437 Date Filed: 05/24/2005 Page: 4
judgment for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in 

McCormick v. City of Lawrence. 289 F. Supp. 2d 1264; McCormick v. City of 

Lawrence, No. Civ. A 03-2195-GTV, 2003 WL 22466188; and McCormick v. Citv 

o.fLawrence, 325 F. Supp. 2d 1191. 

-5-

Entered for the Court 

Michael R. Murphy 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 04-3279 Document: 010110642437 Date Filed: 05/24/2005 Page: 5
Appellate Case: 04-3279 Document: 010110642437 Date Filed: 05/24/2005 Page: 6