Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01545/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01545-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kenneth S. Benigni
Appellant
City of Proctor
Appellee
Bergitta Engstrom
Appellee
Christopher Smith
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1545

___________

Kenneth S. Benigni, * 

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District

Christopher Smith, in his individual and * of Minnesota.

official capacities as law enforcement *

officer of the City of Proctor; City of * [UNPUBLISHED]

Proctor, Minnesota; Bergitta Engstrom, *

in her individual and official capacities, *

 *

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: November 18, 2004

Filed: January 6, 2005 

___________

Before WOLLMAN and HEANEY, Circuit Judges, and HOLMES,1

 District Judge.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 04-1545 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/06/2005 Entry ID: 1852123 
2

The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the

District of Minnesota.

-2-

Kenneth Begnini appeals a summary judgment in which the district court2

 held

that Officer Christopher Smith has qualified immunity with respect to Begnini’s

Fourth and First Amendment claims through 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and that Smith and

the City of Proctor have official immunity under state law on Begnini’s state law

claims. We affirm.

Smith arrested Begnini following a 911 call from an employee of a rest stop.

The employee reported, “[w]e have a man up here who’s causing problems. We have

reported him in the past . . . . [a]nd he’s become fairly verbally abusive, demanding

that I go in and take a note down that was made up about him . . . . [a]nd I think we

need you to come and check. He’s been here before. He’s gotten very abusive in the

past.” The scene when Smith arrived confirmed the report that Begnini was at the

center of a disturbance. After some verbal resistence, Smith persuaded Begnini to go

outside. Smith pushed Begnini in the back twice as Begnini was leaving with him.

Neither push caused Begnini to fall or to suffer any injury. After the second push,

Begnini turned around and walked backwards, which caused him to fall over a

garbage can. Smith arrested Begnini for disorderly conduct. Minn. Stat. § 609.72.

Smith also handcuffed Begnini.

We review de novo a district court’s grant of qualified immunity on summary

judgment. Tlamka v. Serrell, 244 F.3d 628, 632 (8th Cir. 2001). Begnini cites Minn.

Stat. § 629.34 subd. 1(c) and several Minnesota cases for the proposition that an

officer can make a warrant-less arrest for a misdemeanor only when the misdemeanor

is committed in the officer’s presence. However, an officer’s violation of state law

does not establish a Fourth Amendment violation. Abbott v. City of Crocker, 30 F.3d

994, 998 (8th Cir. 1994). In a § 1983 case, the issue is whether the officer should

Appellate Case: 04-1545 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/06/2005 Entry ID: 1852123 
-3-

have known that the arrest violated clearly established rights under the Fourth

Amendment, not whether the officer violated state law. “The Supreme Court has

never held that a police officer violates the Fourth Amendment merely by arresting

someone without a warrant for a misdemeanor offense which did not occur in the

officer’s presence and/or did not involve a breach of the peace.” Woods v. City of

Chicago, 234 F.3d 979, 992 (7th Cir. 2000). See also Street v. Surdyka, 492 F.2d

368, 371-72 (4th Cir. 1974). An officer making an arrest has qualified immunity

unless the officer should have known that the arrest violated plaintiff’s clearly

established rights under the Fourth Amendment, which is to say that the issue is

whether there was arguable probable cause for the arrest. Habiger v. City of Fargo,

80 F.3d 289, 295 (8th Cir. 1996). Determining whether there was arguable probable

cause requires the court to look at the facts known to the officer at the time of the

arrest to determine whether the arrest was reasonable. Kiser v. City of Huron, 219

F.3d 814, 816 (8th Cir. 2000). Officers are entitled to rely on the veracity of

information supplied by the victim of a crime. Id.; Anderson v. Cass County, 367

F.3d 741, 746 (8th Cir. 2004). The facts known to Smith at the time he arrested

Begnini gave him arguable probable cause for the arrest. Therefore, the district court

correctly held that Smith has qualified immunity with respect to the arrest. Likewise,

the district court correctly held that the minimum use of force by Smith did not give

rise to a constitutional violation. Crumley v. City of St. Paul, Minnesota, 324 F.3d

1003, 1007 (8th Cir. 2003); Curd v. City Court of Judsonia, Arkansas, 141 F.3d 839,

841 (8th Cir. 1998); Foster v. Metropolitan Airports Comm’n, 914 F.2d 1076, 1081-

82 (8th Cir. 1990). Our holding that Smith has qualified immunity for the alleged

unlawful arrest disposes of Begnini’s argument that Smith arrested him in retaliation

for the exercise of his First Amendment rights. Foster, 914 F.2d at 1080.

Finally, the district court held that official immunity protects Smith and the

City of Proctor from Begnini’s state law claims, citing Kelly v. City of Minneapolis,

598 N.W.2d 657, 664 (Minn. 1999), and Wiederholt v. City of Minneapolis, 581

N.W.2d 312, 316 (Minn. 1998). We agree.

Appellate Case: 04-1545 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/06/2005 Entry ID: 1852123 
-4-

The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1545 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/06/2005 Entry ID: 1852123