# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls
For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 5- 18 97

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

W il li am Bil ly G en e Car te r

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

Ken ny Hute rs on ; Lo rat ea Ak ers ; Vi ck ie Dy e; Cy nt hi a Ja nn am an ; Lan ce Br own ; Ja ne t Heyer; Sa nd y

Swan so n; Ang el Lawso n; Heat he r Ri ch ard s; Alex ey Nik it in ; Dav id R. Hun te r; R hi nn ia And rews ; Ken ne th Hut ch as on ; Lo ret ta Aker s; Sta nl ey Lan ce Br own

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - J effe rs on Cit y

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Ju ne 16 , 20 16
Fil ed : Au gu st 8, 2 01 6

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re SM ITH, GRUENDE R, an d B ENTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

GRUENDER, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

W il li am Cart er su ed em

pl oyees of th e Mi ss ou ri Dep art m en t of Men ta l Heal th (“ DMH”) un de r 42 U.S.C. § 19 83

. Cart er al le ge d th at th es e de fen da nt s vi ol at ed hi s
Fo ur th

, Eig ht h, an d Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t rig ht s b y f or ci bl y co ll ect in g hi sfin ge rp rin ts
, a m ou th swa b, an d a bl oo d sa m pl e whi le he was co n f

i n e d a t F ul to n
Hos pi ta l as a ci vi ll y co m m it te d se xu al ly vi ol en t pr ed at or

. Th e d i s tri ct co ur t 1

di sm is se d C art er’s co m

pl ai nt for fai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m . W e aff irm.

I.

In 20 02

, Ca r t er pl ead ed no t gu il ty by reas on of m en ta l di se as e or de fect to

va rio us ch arg es rel at ed to th e ki dn ap pi ng an d de vi at e se xu al as sa ul t of h i s si xt een

y ear- ol d ne ig hb or

. As a res ul t of th is pl ea, Cart er was co m m it te d to th e cu st od y of

t h e D M H

. Cart er’s su bs eq ue nt ap pl ic at io n fo r co nd it io na l rel eas e tri gg ere d

m an da to ry rev ie w of hi s el ig ib il it y fo r in vo lun ta ry ci vil co m

m itm en t unde r Mi sso ur i’s

Sex ua ll y Vio le nt Pred at or s Act, Mo

. Rev

. St at

. § 63 2.4 80 -5 13

. Pu rs ua nt to th at

st a t u t e , a jury fo un d Cart er to be a se xu al ly vi ol en t pr ed at or , an d Cart er th eref or e

rem ai ne d co nf

in ed at Fu lt on St at e Hos pi ta l, a faci li ty un de r th e di rect io n of th e DMH.

In Nov em be r 20 14

, Cart er file d a co m pl ai nt un de r 42 U.S.C § 19 83

, al le gi ng
th at DMH em

pl oyees wor ki ng at Fu lt on St at e Hos pi ta l ha d vi ol at ed hi s rig ht s un de r
th e F o u r t h

, Ei gh th

, an d Fo ur te en th Am en dm en ts

. The co m pl ai nt al le ge d th at th e
de fen da nt s an d two Mi ss ou ri Hi gh way Pat ro l o ffi cers ha d a pp ro ach ed Cart er at th e
ho sp it al an d in fo rm ed hi m th at th ey ne ed ed hi s fi n g e r p r i n t s , a bl oo d sa m pl e, an d a

m ou th swa b

. Acco rd in g to th e co m pl ai nt , wh en Cart er refu se d to co op erat e un le ss
th e o ffi cers pro du ced a va li d s earc h war ran t, t he off ic ers ord ered th e de fen da nt s to

res tra in Cart er an d ob ta in th e sa m pl es

. Cart er al le ge d th at at th at po in t, al l ni ne st aff

m em be rs “ ph y si cal ly as sa ul te d an d at ta ck ed ” hi m

. He cl ai m ed th at th e at ta ck res ul te d

in a pu ll ed te nd on on hi s le ft in de x fin ge r; a br ui se , sp rai n, an d cu t on hi s le ft m id dl e

The Hon or ab le St ep he n R. Bo ug h, Uni te d St at es Dis tri c t J u d g e fo r th e 1

W es te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

-2

-fin ge r; an d a br ui se on hi s le ft arm

. Cart er fu rth er al le ge d th at th e de fen da nt s fai le d

to pro vi de ap pr op ria te m ed ic al tre at m en t fo r th es e in juri es

.

The de fen da nt s m ov ed to di sm is s Cart er’s co m pl a i n t

. The y arg ue d th at th ey
di d no t vi ol at e Cart er’s Fo ur th Am en dm en t rig ht s b y t ak in g Cart er’s fin ge rp rin ts
,

m ou th s w a b

, a n d bl oo d sa m pl e be cau se , as a se xu al ly vi ol en t pr ed at or , Cart er was

req ui red to pr ov id e th es e mat e r ia ls un de r Mi ss ou ri la w. Acco rd in g to se ct io n
65 0.0 55 .1 o f th e Mi ss ou ri R ev is ed Sta tu te s, “ [e]ver y in di vi du al who

. . . [h ]as be en
de te rm in ed to be a se xu al ly vi ol en t pr ed at or

. . . sh al l ha ve a fin ge rp rin t an d bl oo d or

sc ie nt ifi cal ly acce pt ed bi ol og ic al sa m pl e co ll ect ed fo r pu rp os es of DNA pr of il in g

an al y si s.” The de fen da nt s furt he r arg ue d th at Cart er’s as se rti on th at th e de fen da nt s

em pl oyed ex ces si ve fo rce fai le d to st at e a c l a i m un de r th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t

be cau se Cart er co nc ed ed th at he res is te d th e effo rts of th e hi gh way pa tro l of fic ers to

ob ta in hi s in fo rm at io n a nd be cau se hi s ba re co nc lu si on th at he was “ ph y si cal ly

as sa ul te d an d at ta ck ed ” was no t su ffi ci en t to wit hs ta nd a mo t i o n to di sm is s. The

de fen da nt s al so co nt en de d th at ne it he r th e m an ne r in whi ch th ey ob ta in ed th e sa m pl es

no r an y al le ge d de la y in Cart er’s rece ip t of m ed ic al tre at m en t vi ol at ed Cart er’s rig ht s

un de r th e Eig ht h or Fo ur te en th A men dm en ts

. Fi na ll y , th e de fen da nt s arg ue d th ey

were en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y be cau se th ei r al le ge d fo rci bl e c o l l e c t i o n of

Cart er’s fin ge rp rin ts
, m ou th swa b, an d bl oo d sa m pl e rep res en te d co nd uc t th at a

r eas on ab le of

fic er wou ld be li ev e is la wfu l. Se e Ja mes ex re l. Ja mes v. Fri en d , 4 5 8

F.3 d 7 26 , 73 0 (8 th Cir . 20 06 ).

The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d th e de fen da nt s’ m ot io n to di sm is s. The co ur t fo un d

th at th e warra nt le ss co ll ect io n of Cart er’s fin ge rp rin ts
, m ou th swa b, an d bl oo d sam pl e
di d no t vi ol at e th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t be cau se th is co ll ect io n rep res en te d a

reas on ab le

, m in im al in tru si on an d be cau se Cart er ha d a red uc ed ex pe ct at io n of

pr iv acy as a ci vi ll y co m

m it te d se x u al ly v io le nt pr ed at or

. The co ur t al so co nc lu de d

th at Cart er fai le d to p l e a d f a c ts sh owi ng th at th e m an ne r in whi ch th e de fen da nt s

-3

-co ll ect ed th es e m at eri al s vi ol at ed Cart er’s ri g ht s un de r th e Fo ur th

, Eig ht h, or

Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t. Fi na ll y , th e co ur t ru le d th at th e de fen da nt s were en ti tl ed to

qu al ifi ed im m

un it y be cau se Cart er fai le d to st at e fact s de m on st rat in g th e vi ol at io n of

a co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht th at was cl earl y es ta bl is he d at th e ti m e of th e al le ge d vi ol at io n

an d be cau se th e de fen da nt s’ al le ge d co nd uc t was reas on ab le un de r th e ci rcu m st an ces
al le ge d i n t he co m

pl ai nt . Cart er ap pe al s.

II.

O n ap pe al

, Cart er arg ue s on ly th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d whe n it di sm is se d

hi s cl ai m th at th e d efen da nt s’ warran tl es s, fo rci bl e d rawi ng of hi s bl oo d to pr od uc e

a DNA pr of

il e vi ol at ed hi s rig ht s un de r th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t. W e rev ie w de no vo

a di st ric t co ur t’s di sm is sa l un de r Ru le 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 )

, t ak in g al l fact s al le ge d in th e

co m pl ai nt as t r u e

. T

r oo ie n v. Man so ur , 60 8 F.3 d 10 20

, 10 26 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ). To

su rv iv e a m ot io n to di sm is s fo r fai lu re to st at e a c l a i m, “a c o m pl ai nt m us t co nt ai n

su ffi ci en t fact ua l m at te r, acce pt ed as tru e, to st at e a cl ai m to rel ie f th at is pl au si bl e on
it s face .” Bra de n v. W

al -Ma rt St or es , In c. , 58 8 F.3 d 58 5, 59 4 (8 th Ci r

. 20 09 ) (q uo ti ng Ash cr of

t v. Iq ba l

, 55 6 U.S. 66 2, 67 8 (2 00 9) ). Si m il arl y , de fen da nt s se ek in g
di sm is sa l un de r Ru le 12 (b )(6 ) ba se d on an as se r ti on of qu al ifi ed im m un it y “ m us t

sh o w t h a t th ey are en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y on th e face of th e co m pl ai nt .”

Bra df or d v . Huck

ab ee , 39 4 F .3d 10 12 , 10 15 (8t h C ir. 2 00 5)

.

A.

In ap pe al in g th e di sm is sa l o f h i s Fo ur th Am en dm en t cl ai m , Cart er fir st

co nt en ds th at be cau se he was a c iv il ly co m m it te d in di vi du al rat he r th an a pr e-t ria l

de ta in ee or a pr is on er, th e de fen da nt s co ul d no t co ll ect a bl oo d sa m pl e to pr od uc e hi s
DNA p r o f

i le wit ho ut fir st de m on st rat in g in di vi du al iz ed su sp ic io n of cri m in al

wro ng do in g an d acq ui rin g a se arch warra nt

. Howev er, we do no t reac h th e qu es ti on

-4

-of whe th er th e al le ge d warra nt le ss co ll ect io n of Cart er’s bl oo d sa m pl e vi ol at ed th e
Fo ur th Am en dm en t be cau se th e de fen da nt s are en ti tl ed to qu a l i f i ed im m un it y wit h

res pe ct to th is cl ai m

. Se e Pea rs on v. Ca ll ah an , 55 5 U.S. 22 3, 24 0- 42 (2 00 9) (h ol di ng

t h a t co ur ts ha ve th e di sc ret io n to reco gn iz e an of fic ia l’s en ti tl em en t to qu al if i e d

im m un it y wit ho ut fir st de ci di ng whet he r a co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n t oo k p la ce).

“ Qua li fie d im m

un it y sh ie ld s go ve rn m en t of fic ia ls fro m li ab il it y fo r ci vi l

da m ag es fo r di sc ret io na ry act s th at do no t ‘vio la te cl earl y es ta bl is he d s t a t ut or y or

co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s of whi ch a reas o n ab le pe rs on wou ld ha ve kn own .’ ” Moo re ex

re l. Moo re v. Bri

gg s , 38 1 F.3 d 77 1, 7 7 2 ( 8 th Ci r. 20 04 ) (q uo ti ng Har lo w v.
Fit zg er al d

, 45 7 U.S. 80 0, 81 8 (1 98 2) ). Here, th e de fen da nt s are en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed

im m un it y wit h res pe ct to th ei r al le ge d ta ki ng of Cart er’s bl oo d sa m pl e be cau se Cart er
ha s fai le d to de m on st rat e th at
, at th e ti m e of th e ev en ts in qu es ti on , ci vi ll y co m m it te d

se xu al ly vio le nt pre da to rs m ai nt ai ne d a cl earl y es ta bl is he d ri gh t t o b e fre e fro m th e

warra nt le ss dr awin g of a bl oo d sa m pl e to pro du ce a DNA p ro fil e. To th e co nt rary,

a reas on ab le pe rs on in te rp ret in g th e la w go ve rn in g th e de fen da nt s’ co nd uc t co ul d

h a v e co nc lu de d th at th e Co ns ti tu ti on pe rm it te d th e warra nt le ss co ll ect io n of t h i s
in fo rm at io n fr om

su ch in di vi du al s.

Fi rs t, we pr ev io u s l y ha ve he ld th at ci vi ll y co m m it te d in di vi du al s “ ret ai n th e
Fo ur th Am en dm en t rig ht to be free fro m un reas on ab le se arch es th at is an al og ou s to

th e rig ht ret ai ne d by pr et ria l de ta in ees .” Bea ul ie u v. Lu de man , 69 0 F.3 d 10 17

, 10 28 (8 th Ci r. 2 0 1 2 )

. Sh or tl y aft er ou r de ci si on in Bea ul ie u , th e Su pr em e Co ur t he ld in

Mar yl an d v. Ki ng th at th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t do es no t requ ire au th or it ie s to ob ta in

a warra nt be fo re co nd uc ti ng a m ou th swa b to ob ta in th e D N A p r o f i le of a pr et ria l

de ta in ee. 56 9 U.S. ---, 13 3 S. Ct

. 19 58 (2 01 3)

. Rel y in g on th es e two cas es , th eref or e,
th e de fen da nt s reas on ab ly co ul d ha ve co nc lu de d th at th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t do es no t

pr oh ib it th e warra nt le ss co ll ect io n of a ci vi ll y co m m it te d pe rs on ’s DNA pr of il e.

In de ed

, th e de f

e n d a n ts ha ve sh own th at se ve ral of th e sa m e go ve rn m en t in te res ts

-5

-id en ti fie d in Ki ng reas on ab ly co ul d jus ti fy th e DNA id en ti fic at io n of a ci vi ll y

co m m it te d se xu al ly vi ol en t pr ed at or , inclu di ng de te rm in in g “ th e [in di vi du al ]’ s fu tu re
da ng ero us ne ss ” an d th e ex te nt he m ig ht be “ in cl in ed to fle e” fro m co nf in em en t. Se e
id

. at 19 72 -7 3.

Seco nd

, co ur ts ge ne ral ly ha ve reco gn iz ed th e co ll ect io n of a bl oo d sa m pl e as

a m in im al ly in tru si ve m ech an is m fo r ob ta in in g in fo rm at io n fro m in di vi du al s in st at e

cu st od y

. Se e, e. g

. , Sc hme rb er v. Ca li fo rn ia

, 38 4 U.S. 75 7, 77 1 (1 96 6) (n ot in g th at

bl oo d dr aws in vo lv e “ vi rtu al ly no ris k, tra um a, or pa in ”); Uni te d St at es v. Amers on , 4 8 3 F

. 3 d 7 3

, 84 (2 d Ci r. 20 07 ) (rec og ni zi ng th at “ al l th e co m m on m et ho ds o f

ob ta in in g [a] DNA sa m

pl e” in vo lv e on ly m in im al in tru si on s up on pr iv acy in te res ts );

Ris e v. Ore

go n , 59 F.3 d 15 56

, 15 60 (9 th Ci r. 19 95 ) (“ Tha t th e ga th eri ng o f D N A

in fo rm at io n re qu ire s th e dr awin g of bl oo d rat he r th an in ki ng an d ro ll in g a pe rs on ’s

fin ge rti ps do es no t el ev at e th e in tru si on up on th e pl ai nt iff s’ Fo ur th Am en dm en t

in te res t s t o a le ve l be y on d m in im al .”), ov er ru le d on ot he r gr ou nd s by Ci ty of

I n d i a n a po li s v. Edmo nd

, 53 1 U.S. 32 (2 00 0)

. W e ack no wled ge th at th e Su pr eme
Co ur t’s rece nt de ci si on in Bi rc hf ie ld v. No rt h Dak

ot a m ay affe ct ou r as se ss m en t of

th e reas on ab le ne ss of th is co ll ect io n m et ho d in fu tu re cas es

. Se e 57 9 U.S. ---, 13 6 S.

Ct

. 21 60

, 21 78 (2 01 6) (rec og ni zi ng th at bl oo d dr aws are m or e in tru si ve th an ot he r

m et ho ds of ob ta i n i n g i nf or m at io n fro m in di vi du al s st op pe d fo r dr un k dr iv in g)

. Howev er, be cau se th is de ci si on was an no un ced well aft er t h e ev en ts in qu es ti on , i t

ha s no im

pl ic at io ns fo r ou r an al y si s of Cart er’s “ cl earl y es ta bl is he d” rig ht s. Se e
Moo re , 38 1 F.3d at 77 2. Giv en th e st at e of th e la w at th e ti m e of th e al le ge d eve nt s

an d hi s st at us as a ci vi ll y co m m it te d se xu al ly vi ol en t pr ed at or , Cart er di d no t ha ve a

“ cl earl y es ta bl is he d ” r ig ht to be free fro m th e warra nt le ss co ll ect io n of hi s bl oo d

sa m pl e fo r th e pu rp os e of ob ta in in g hi s DNA pr of il e. Se e id

. As a res ul t, th e di st ric t

co ur t di d no t err whe n it fo un d th at th e de fen da nt s are en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y
wit h re sp ect to th is cla im

. Se e Bra df or d , 39 4 F .3d at 1 01 5.

-6

-B.

Cart er al so arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d whe n i t ru le d th at he fai le d to

al le ge fact s su ffi ci en t to st at e a cl ai m th at th e fo rce th e de fen da nt s em pl oyed whe n

ta ki ng hi s bl oo d sa m

pl e vi ol at ed hi s rig ht s un de r th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t. “ The rig ht

to be free fro m ex ces si ve fo rce i s a c l e a r l y es ta bl is he d rig ht un de r th e Fo ur th

Am en dm en t’s pr oh ib it io n ag ai ns t un reas on ab le se iz ur es of th e pe rs on .” Co ok v. Ci ty of Bell a Vil la

, 58 2 F.3 d 84 0, 84 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (q uo ti ng Moo re v. In de ha r , 51 4 F.3 d

75 6, 75 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 )). W he th er an of fic er’s us e of fo rce is ex ces si ve is a qu es ti on
of whe th er “ th e am ou nt of fo rce us ed was ob jecti ve ly reas on ab le un de r th e pa rti cu la r
ci rcu m st an ces .” Sma ll v. McCr ys ta l

, 70 8 F.3 d 99 7, 10 05 (8 th C i r

. 2 0 1 3) (q uo ti ng
Bro wn v. Ci ty of Gol de n Val le y , 57 4 F.3 d 49 1, 49 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 )). The us e of fo rce
is no t ex ces si ve whe re it in vo lv es on ly th e le ve l of ph y si cal co erci on ne ces sa ry to

ex ecu te an ot he rwis e la wfu l s e i z u r e

. Se e Bro wn , 57 4 F.3 d at 49 6 (“ Fo ur th

A mend m en t juri sp ru de nc e ha s lo ng reco gn iz ed th at th e rig ht to m ak e an a r r e s t o r
in ve st ig at or y st op ne ces sa ril y carr ie s wit h it th e rig ht to us e so m e de gr ee of ph y si cal

co erci on or th reat th ereo f to effe ct it .” (q uo ti ng Gra ha m v. Co nn or , 49 0 U.S. 38 6, 39 6 (1 98 9) )); se e al

so Peñ a- Bor re ro v. Es t r e m e d a , 36 5 F.3 d 7, 12 (1 st Ci r. 20 04 ) (af fi rm ing dis m iss al of ex ce ssi ve force cl ai m in whi ch “ th e al le ga ti on s de m on st rat e[d ]

n o m or e th an th e ‘deg ree of ph y si cal co erci on ’ typic al ly at te nd an t to an arre st ” (q uo ti ng Gra ha m , 49 0 U.S. at 39 6) ).

Und er th is st an da rd

, Cart er’s b a r e as se rti on th at al l of th e de fen da nt s
si m ul ta ne ou sl y “ ph y si cal ly as sa ul te d an d at ta ck ed hi m ” fai ls to st at e a cl ai m t h at

th os e de fen da nt s vi ol at ed hi s Fo ur th Am en d ment rig ht s. Cart er al le ge s no fact s

reg ard in g th e “ am ou nt of fo rce” in vo lv ed in th is al le ge d a t t a c k

, pr ecl ud in g an y
in fere nc e th at su ch fo rce was no t “ ob jecti ve ly reas on ab le un de r t h e p a rti cu la r
ci rcu m st an ces .” Se e Sma ll

, 70 8 F.3 d at 10 05

. Nor do Cart er’s al le ga ti on s reg ard in g
th e in juri es he su st ai ne d pe rm it an in fere nc e th at th e de fen da nt s us ed ex ces si ve fo rce.

-7

-Se e Ch amb er s v. Pe n n y c o o k

, 6 41 F.3 d 89 8, 90 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (“ The de gr ee of

in jury [s uf fere d in an ex ces si ve -fo rce cas e] is cert ai nl y rel ev an t in so far as it te nd s to

sh ow th e am ou nt an d type of fo rce us ed .”). To th e co nt rary, th e di st ric t co ur t

co nc lu de d th at th e in

juri es Cart er al le ge s— a p ul le d t en do n o n h is lef t in de x fin ge r,

a b r u i se , sp rai n, an d cu t on hi s le ft m id dl e fin ge r, an d a br ui se on h i s l e f t

arm —re su lt ed fro m hi s res is ta nc e to th e de fen da nt s’ effo rts to ob ta in a bl oo d sa m pl e. Cf . S he kl et on v. Eich en be rg er , 6 77 F.3 d 3 6 1 , 3 66 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (rec og ni zi ng th at

“ whe th er th e su sp ect is act iv el y res is ti ng or at te m pt in g to ev ad e” an ot he rwis e la wfu l

arre st is a ke y fact or in de te rm in in g w h e th er of fic ers em pl oyed reas on ab le fo rce (q uo ti ng Smi th v. Ka n. Ci ty , Mo. Pol ic e Dep ’t

, 58 6 F.3d 57 6, 58 1 (8t h Cir. 20 09 ))).

As ex pl ai ne d ab ov e, th e de fen da nt s reas on ab ly co ul d ha ve b e l ie ve d th at th e la w

pe rm it te d th e warra nt le ss co ll ect io n of Cart er’s bl oo d sa m pl e. Bec au se Cart er al le ge s

no fact s pe rm it ti ng a pl au si bl e in fere nc e th at th e de fen da nt s em pl oyed fo rce in ex ces s
of th e ph y si cal co erci on at te nd an t to ov erco m in g hi s res is ta nc e to th is se iz ur e, he fai ls

to st at e an ex ces si ve -fo rce cl ai m un de r th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t. Se e Bro wn , 57 4 F.3 d

at 49 5.

III.

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we affir m th e di st ric t co ur t’s d is m is sa l o f Car te r’s

cl ai m

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-8

-