Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-3_17-cv-00239/USCOURTS-ared-3_17-cv-00239-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jason Boling
Defendant
Cheryl Corby
Plaintiff
Daniel Corby
Plaintiff
Aaron Gamber
Defendant
Tony Hill
Defendant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

JONESBORO DIVISION 

DANIEL CORBY; and 

CHERYL CORBY PLAINTIFFS 

v. No. 3:17-cv-239-DPM 

JASON BOLING,* Individually and 

in his Official Capacity as a Police 

Officer for the City of Paragould, 

Arkansas; AARON GAMBER, 

Individually and in his Official 

Capacity as a Police Officer for 

the City of Paragould, Arkansas; 

and TONY HILL, Individually 

ORDER 

DEFENDANTS 

1. Daniel Corby and his wife Cheryl bring several claims against 

three defendants. Daniel says Arkansas State Trooper Tony Hill and 

Paragould Officers Jason Boling and Aaron Gamber violated his federal 

and state rights while searching his jeep, and his person, and during his 

arrest. Cheryl says Trooper Hill also converted her purse without due 

process. The Corbys concede their official capacity claims. NQ 54 at 1 

n.1. Daniel also abandons his claims about another encounter with 

Officer Boling two years later. All the defendants seek summary 

* The Court directs the Clerk to correct Jason Boling's name on the 

docket. 

Case 3:17-cv-00239-DPM Document 61 Filed 06/17/19 Page 1 of 7
judgment. The Court takes the material facts, where genuinely 

disputed, in the light most favorable to the Corbys. Mann v. Yarnell, 497 

F.3d 822, 825 (8th Cir. 2007). 

2. In September 2014, Trooper Hill pulled over a jeep because it 

didn't have headlights. Daniel was driving the jeep. Cheryl was the 

passenger. She had an outstanding warrant for failing to appear. 

Trooper Hill arrested her. Over Daniel's objection, she let the Trooper 

search her purse. Trooper Hill thought Daniel seemed nervous and 

suspected that drugs were in the jeep. So he called Officers Boling and 

Gamber to conduct a K9 search. They eventually arrived with Dux, a 

police dog. Dux circled the jeep twice. On his second lap he alerted 

that he smelled narcotics, changing his body and sitting near the 

passenger side of the jeep. NQ 53 at 4. Daniel says he heard Officer 

Boling tell Dux to sit. Over Daniel's objections, Officers Boling and 

Gamber searched the jeep. They didn't find anything. Trooper Hill 

then had Daniel lean over the hood of Hill's cruiser and patted him 

down. During the search he felt a container, which he thought held 

drugs. It was potpourri, which can be type of synthetic marijuana. 

NQ 40 at 17-18; NQ 53 at 5. Trooper Hill arrested Daniel for possession 

of a controlled substance. Another officer arrived to take Daniel to the 

Greene County Detention Center; Trooper Hill took Cheryl. He helped 

-2-

Case 3:17-cv-00239-DPM Document 61 Filed 06/17/19 Page 2 of 7
book her and left her purse on the booking desk. 

NQ 53 at 7. At the jail, Daniel ended up in solitary confinement because 

he wouldn't stop cussing other inmates. He was released six days later. 

Daniel was found guilty in District Court, appealed, and the Circuit 

Court dismissed the charge. 

3. Cheryl's constitutional claim against Trooper Hill about her 

purse fails. Even if her claim isn't barred under Hudson v. Palmer, 468 

U.S. 517, 539 (1984), Trooper Hill didn't deprive Cheryl of her purse 

within the meaning of the Due Process Clause. Soldal v. Cook County, 

Illinois, 506 U.S. 56, 61 (1992). He searched it, left it for her at the police 

station, and never damaged it. NQ 36-5 at 19-20. Similarly, any statelaw conversion claim fails because Trooper Hill's actions weren't 

inconsistent with Cheryl's property rights. Schmidt v. Stearman, 98 Ark. 

App. 167, 173-74, 253 S.W.3d 35, 41-42 (2007). 

4. Daniel claims the officers unlawfully extended the traffic stop, 

didn't have probable cause to search his jeep, didn't have probable 

cause to search his person, and didn't have probable cause to arrest 

him. Daniel challenges, in particular, Officer Boling' s probable cause 

determination that led to the search of his jeep. Three of Daniel's arrestrelated claims fail; his jeep-related search claim against Officer Boling 

survives. 

-3-

Case 3:17-cv-00239-DPM Document 61 Filed 06/17/19 Page 3 of 7
First, the length of the stop was reasonable. United States v. 

Anguiano, 795 F.3d 873, 876-77 (8th Cir. 2015). Trooper Hill obtained 

information about Cheryl and Daniel. Then he arrested Cheryl. Daniel 

seemed anxious to the Trooper. Reasonably suspecting some criminal 

activity, the Trooper waited about fifteen minutes on the other officers 

to bring Dux. The officers were diligent; the stop's length didn't violate 

the Constitution. United States v. Bloomfield, 40 F.3d 910, 916-17 (8th Cir. 

1994) (en bane). 

Second, Trooper Hill had at least arguable probable cause to 

search Daniel. After Dux alerted on Daniel's jeep, Officers Boling and 

Gamber didn't find anything. Daniel was the jeep's last occupant. It 

was therefore reasonable to conclude that he might possess the 

contraband. United States v. Chartier, 772 F.3d 539, 545-46 (8th Cir. 

2014). 

Last, Trooper Hill had a reason to arrest Daniel. The Trooper 

believed Daniel illegally possessed potpourri. ARK. CODE ANN. § 5-64-

419; Brodnicki v. City of Omaha, 75 F.3d 1261, 1264-65 (8th Cir. 1996). 

Daniel had admitted his possession during the search. NQ 40 at 17-18. 

The Court, though, cannot conclude as a matter of law that Officer 

Boling had arguable probable cause to search Daniel's jeep. Dux is a 

reliable police dog. NQ 36-6; Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237, 243-47 

-4-

Case 3:17-cv-00239-DPM Document 61 Filed 06/17/19 Page 4 of 7
(2013). But Daniel says that Officer Boling created the probable cause 

by telling Dux to sit and alert. NQ 36-3 at 5, 7. Officer Boling denies this. 

He says he can't make Dux alert. NQ 36-4 at 7. All this testimony creates 

a genuine dispute of material fact. Because Dux' s alert is critically 

important in the probable cause analysis, a forced alert would 

undermine the basis for searching this Jeep. See United States v. 

Donnelly, 475 F.3d 946, 955 (8th Cir. 2007). 

This factual dispute, however, doesn't affect the legal analysis 

about Officer Gamber or Trooper Hill. Daniel hasn't offered any 

evidence that they were aware of or involved in the allegedly false alert. 

Parrish v. Ball, 594 F.3d 993, 1001 (8th Cir. 2010). Officer Gamber 

therefore had arguable probable cause for searching the jeep based on 

Dux' s alert; and Trooper Hill likewise had arguable probable cause for 

searching Daniel. 

Trooper Hill didn't violate Daniel's First Amendment rights in 

retaliation for his words at the scene. A retaliatory-arrest claim requires 

that the arrest lack probable cause. Nieves v. Bartlett, 139 S. Ct. 1715, 

1725-26 (2019); Waters v. Madson, 921 F.3d 725,741 (8th Cir. 2019). And 

a retaliatory-detention claim requires that the detention lack reasonable 

susp1c1on. Waters, 921 F.3d at 736-38, 741-42. Trooper Hill had 

probable cause to arrest Daniel for admittedly having potpourri. 

-5-

Case 3:17-cv-00239-DPM Document 61 Filed 06/17/19 Page 5 of 7
Similarly, Trooper Hill had a reasonable suspicion to search Daniel's 

jeep, even though it would require some delay. The initial stop for no 

headlights, Cheryl's warrant, and Daniel's nervous behavior created a 

reason to detain the couple briefly to get a K9 search done. United States 

v. Foley, 206 F.3d 802, 806 (8th Cir. 2000). 

5. Daniel also argues in passing that the officers deprived him of 

due process after the arrest. He says he didn't get a timely probable 

cause hearing, plus the Greene County officers wrongfully set his bond. 

But he hasn't pointed to any facts showing that these officers 

participated in scheduling his first appearance. And nothing of record 

shows that the individual officers controlled Daniel's bond. Walden v. 

Carmack, 156 F.3d 861, 874 (8th Cir. 1998). 

* * * 

Officers Boling and Gamber' s motion for summary judgment, 

NQ 35, is mostly granted and partly denied. Trooper Hill's motion, 

NQ 37, is granted. For every federal claim that is dismissed, the parallel 

claims under the Arkansas Constitution are also dismissed: they turn 

on the same facts; and the state law isn't different from federal law. All 

Cheryl's claims are dismissed with prejudice. We'll have a trial on 

Daniel's remaining search claims (federal and state) against Officer 

Boling. First, did he prompt Dux' s alert by telling the dog to sit? If not, 

-6-

Case 3:17-cv-00239-DPM Document 61 Filed 06/17/19 Page 6 of 7
Officer Boling had arguable probable cause to search. Second, if Officer 

Boling told Dux to sit, then he lacked arguable probable cause. And the 

only remaining question will be Daniel's damages flowing from the 

search. An Amended Final Scheduling Order will issue. 

So Ordered. 

t,, 

D.P. Marshall Jr. 

United States District Judge 

I 7 JvAfe. ~ot 9 

-7-

Case 3:17-cv-00239-DPM Document 61 Filed 06/17/19 Page 7 of 7