## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 0- 20 95

__ __ __ __ __ _
Ri ck y E. Moo re, *

* Pl ai nt iff /Ap pe ll an t, *

* App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s

v. * Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e
* East ern Dis tri ct of M is so ur i. Ci ty of Des lo ge , Mis so ur i, *

* Defen da nt /Ap pe ll ee, *

* The res a A. Mo or e; Jas on E. Moo re, *

* Defen da nt s, *

* Aaro n M al ad y ; J am es Bu ll oc k; * Jo hn Doe 1 ; J oh n Do e 2
, *

* Defen da nt s/ App el le es

. *

__ __ __ __ __ _
Su bm it te d: Marc h 1 7, 2 01 1 Fi le d: Ju ly 28, 2 01 1

__ __ __ __ __ _
Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , LOKE N and COLLOTON, Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ _ RILEY, Chi ef J ud ge

.

Afte r c o nc lu di ng po li ce vi ol at ed Ri ck y E. Mo or e’s co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s in

se iz in g it em s fro m Mo or e’s res id en ce, a Mi ss ou ri st at e tri al co ur t su pp res se d th eev id en ce. Mi s s o u r i fil ed an in te rlo cu to ry ap pe al of th e su pp res si on or de r in th e

Mi ss ou ri Co ur t of App eal s, whi ch was di sm is se d. Mo or e th en br ou gh t th is ci vi l rig ht s la wsu it ag ai ns t hi s ex -wif e The res a Mo or e (The res a) an d so n Ja so n Mo or e (J as on ), th e Ci ty of Des lo ge , Mi ss ou ri (ci ty), ci ty po li ce of fic er Aaro n Mal ad y (Offi cer Mal ad y ),
ci ty po li ce ch ie f Ja m es Bu l l o c k (Ch ie f Bu ll oc k)
, an d un id en ti fie d de fen da nt s. The

co m pl ai n t a l l e g e d a 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 cl ai m ag ai ns t al l de fen da nt s fo r vi ol at io ns of
Mo or e’s ci vi l rig ht s, as well as § 19 85 an d st at e la w cl ai m s fo r ci vi l co ns pi racy ag ai ns t al l de fen da nt s. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d The res a’s an d Ja so n’s m ot io n to di sm is s an d 1

gr an te d su m

m ary jud gm en t in fav or of th e rem ai ni ng de fen da nt s. Mo or e ap pe al s th e di sm is sa l of th e ci ty, Offi cer Mal ad y , an d Ch ie f Bu ll oc k (co ll ect iv el y , th e p o l ic e),
al le gi ng va rio us erro rs . W e aff irm.

I. BACKGRO UND 2

Mo or e an d The res a were m arri ed in 19 72

. In 19 88
, Mo or e’s rig ht ha nd was

cru sh ed at wor k in a fil tra ti on ro ll in g m il l, req ui rin g th e am pu ta ti on of th ree fin ge rs

. Mo or e su ffer s fro m se ve ral “ se rio us an d pe rm an en t m ed ic al co n d i t i o n s an d
di sa bi li ti es ” r e q u i r i n g reg ul ar tre at m en t. Mo or e req ui res da il y do se s of in su li n to

m an ag e hi s di ab et es an d co nt in uo us ly t a k e s ox y ge n to tre at hi s ch ro ni c ob st ru ct iv e
pu lm on ary di se as e (COPD). He al so su ffer s fro m ru pt ur ed di sk s in hi s s pi ne wit h
bo ne sp ur s. In 20 04
, Mo or e “ was de p e n de nt up on nu m ero us pr es cri pt io n dr ug s to

tre at hi s m ed ic al co nd it io n an d to rel ie ve pa in
, in cl ud in g, bu t no t li m it ed to , th e dr ug

ox y co nt in .” Acco rd in g to hi s co m pl ai nt , Mo or e ha s be en “ to ta ll y di sa bl ed an d un ab le

to work or s up po rt h im se lf” si nc e Sep te m be r 30 , 19 88

.

The Hon or ab le Don al d J . Sto hr , Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t J ud ge for th e Eas te rn 1 Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

W e vi ew th e reco rd de no vo in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to Mo or e, dr awin g al l 2

reas on ab le in fere nc es in hi s favo r. See Veatc h v. Bart el s Luth eran Hom e, 62 7 F.3 d 12 54 , 12 57 (8t h C ir. 2 01 0)

.
-2

-Mo or e rep or ts th at as l at e as 19 94 , he

was fin an ci al ly se cu re th en own in g an d po ss es si ng th e fo ll owi ng as se ts (am on g ot he rs )[: ] (a) W or ke r’s Co m pe ns at io n se tt le m en t rel at ed to [th e

ro ll in g m il l acci de nt ] in th e gr os s su m of $6 50 ,00 0.0 0, (b ) real es ta te an d ho m e at Bo nn e Terre, Mi ss ou ri (fre e of m or tg ag e de bt ), (c) se ve ral

au to m ob il es , (d ) cas h of at le as t $1 00 ,00 0.0 0, (e) va lu ab le gu n co ll ect io n, (f) va lu ab le kn ife co ll ect io n, (g ) va lu ab le go l d c o i n c ol le ct io n, (h ) real

es ta te an d ho m e [in ] Bi sm ar c k, Mi ss ou ri (fre e of m or tg ag e de bt ) an d (i) ot he r va lu ab le ass et s.

Mo or e cl ai m s The res a se t ou t hi s da il y m ed ic in es an d in su li n un ti l ab ou t 19 94 -9 5, an d
th en sh e res ol ve d “ to ei th er ( a ) ki ll [Mo or e] to acq ui re hi s as se ts or (b ) to di vo rce [Mo or e] and tak e su bs ta nt ia ll y all of [ hi s] ass et s i n t he di vo rce pro ces s v ia un la wfu l

m ean s.”

Mo or e al le ge s The res a an d J a s o n , h av in g fai le d to ki ll Mo or e by se tt in g ou t le th al do sa ge s of m ed ic at io n an d in su li n, tri ed to st eal hi s as se ts by crea ti ng a si tu at io n whe re Mo or e was un av ai la bl e to de fen d ag ai ns t The res a’s di vo rce act io n. The al le ge d

co ns pi racy co ns is te d o f Th e res a an d Ja so n kn owi ng ly gi vi ng fal se in fo rm at io n to

po li ce in an effo rt “ to wro ng fu ll y im pl ic at e [Mo or e] in va rio us cri m es .” Pu rs ua nt to th is co ns pi racy, Mo or e be li ev ed The res a an d Ja so n co nv in ced a W as hi ng to n Co un ty, Mi ss ou ri, pr os ecu to r t o fil e a cri m in al co m pl ai nt ag ai ns t Mo or e. On Decem be r 12
, 20 03
, th e pr os ecu to r ch arg ed Mo or e “ wit h m ak in g an d po ss e ss in g an il le ga l pi pe bo m b,” an d, as a res ul t, Mo or e was “ arre st ed
, ta ke n in to cu st od y an d in carc erat ed fo r

a su bs ta nt ia l p eri od of t im e.”

Mo or e al le ge s th at on Octo be r 9, 20 04
, Ja so n m et wit h Offi cer Mal ad y an d,
kn owi ng Mo or e was le ga ll y in po ss es si on of ox y co nt in
, t o l d O f f i cer Mal ad y th at
Mo or e was il le ga ll y po ss es si ng an d se ll in g th e dr ug

. Ja so n al so to ld Offi cer Mal ad y th at a warra nt fo r Mo or e’s arre st wa s out st an di ng

. Offi cer Mal ad y co m m un ic at ed wit h

-3

-rad io di sp at ch an d was to ld th e warra nt was fo r un la wfu l us e of a weap on

. Rad io 3
di sp at ch al so in fo rm ed Offi cer Mal ad y th a t “Mo o r e h ad a warn in g in di cat or ou t on hi m fo r po ss es si on an d us e of da ng e ro us weap on s.” Offi cer Mal ad y dr ov e to an
ap art m en t wh ere J as on sai d M oo re co ul d b e fo un d.

The pa rti es di sp ut e wha t ha pp en ed ne xt

. Acco rd in g to Mo or e, Offi cer Mal ad y kn oc ke d on Mo or e’s ap art m en t do or , an d whe n Mo or e op en ed it a crac k, Offi cer Mal ad y ,

wit h gr eat fo rce an d ex tre m e vi ol en ce, il le ga ll y hu rle d th e Prem is es fro nt do or fu ll y op en kn oc ki ng [Mo or e] fir st ag ai ns t a he at er ins id e Prem is es

an d th en to th e flo or ; Office r Mal ad y

. . . th ereu po n im m ed ia te ly pu ll ed

an d st uc k a fu ll y lo ad ed ha nd gu n in [Mo or e’s] face (wh il e la y in g on th e flo or ) s h ou ti ng at [Mo or e] “ Don ’t m ov e y ou m ot he r fu ck er or I’ll ki ll
y ou .”

Offi cer Mal ad y pa rti al ly di sp ut es Mo or e’s ch arac te riz at io n of th e arre st , swe ari ng , “ I
di d no t, m erel y by en te rin g th e

. . . res id en ce (o r m erel y by op en in g or pu sh in g on th e do or th ere, if in de ed I di d so at al l), in te nd to effe ct th e arre st of an y pe rs on

. . . . If th e
op en in g of th e do or st ru ck
, or ha d an y ph y si cal effe ct on , Mr. Mo or e

. . . th en th at was a who ll y acci de nt al an d u ni nt en de d e ffec t . . . .”

W hi le in Mo or e’s res id en ce, Offi cer Mal ad y sa w fir earm s “ in pl ai n si gh t,” an d
he no ti fie d di sp at ch

. Afte r th e fir earm s cal l, at le as t on e ot he r of fic er arri ve d as ba ck

up . In ad di ti on to sev eral fir earm s, Office r Mal ad y no ti ced a b ot tl e co nt ai ni ng what

was la te r de te rm in ed to be 60 8 20 m g ox y co nt in pi ll s ne xt to an op en e n ve lo pe

“ co nt ai ni ng m an y Twent y Dol la r bi ll s,” to ta lin g ap pr oxi m at el y $5 80 .00

. Po li ce se iz ed

The warran t, whic h all eg es on Aug us t 27
, 20 03
, Mo or e “ at te m pt ed to ki ll or 3

cau se se rio us ph y si cal in

jury to The res a Mo or e, by sh oo ti ng at he r,” was fo r un la wfu l

us e o f a weap on an d fi rs t d eg ree d om es ti c as sa ul t.

-4

-th e fir earm s, ox y co nt in
, cas h, an d acco rd in g to Mo or e, am m un it io n, a VHS vi de o ta pe , fla res an d fl are g un s, an d “ nu m ero us ot he r it em s o f pe rs on al pro pe rty.”

Mo or e “ was arre st ed
, in carc erat ed
, an d ul ti m at el y ch arg ed [in th e Mi ss ou ri tri al

co ur t] wit h po ss es si on of a co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e” wit h th e in t e n t to di st rib ut e. On
Mar ch 8, 2 0 05
, whi le Mo or e was in carc erat ed
, The res a fil ed fo r di vo rce, an d a

m arri ag e di ss ol ut io n de cree was en te red on Ju ly 1, 20 05

. On Sep te m be r 26
, 20 07
, th e Mi ss ou ri tri al co ur t gr an te d Mo or e’s m ot io n to su pp res s th e ox y co nt in ev id en ce. The

st at e ap pe al ed th e Mi ss ou ri tri al co ur t’s su pp res si on or de r. On J an ua ry 4, 2 00 8, th e Mi ss ou ri Cou rt of App eal s di sm is se d th e st at e’s ap pe al

. The st at e cri m in al cas e was

ev en tu al ly dis m is se d.

On Aug us t 18
, 2 0 0 8
, M o or e co m m en ced th is 42 U.S.C. §§ 19 83 an d 19 85

act io n in th e di st ric t co ur t. Mo or e al le ge d vi ol at io n s of va rio us rig ht s ari si ng un de r th e Fo ur th
, Fi fth
, an d Fo ur te en th Am en dm en ts an d st at e ci vi l co ns pi racy la w. On each
of hi s th ree cl ai m s, Mo or e pr ay ed fo r act ua l da m ag es in ex ces s of $5 mi l l i o n , $1 0

m il li on in pu ni ti ve da m ag es pe r in di vi du al de fen da nt , pl us att or ne y fees an d c os ts

.

The di st ric t co ur t (1 ) di sm is se d th e § 19 83 cl ai m s ag ai n s t Th e r es a an d Ja so n be cau se th ey are no t sta te act or s, (2) dis m is se d th e § 19 85 co ns pi racy cl ai m s in th ei r

en ti ret y be cau se th e co m

pl ai nt fai le d to al le ge di sc riminat or y an im us by The res a an d
Ja so n as req ui red by § 19 85
, an d (3 ) de cl in ed to ex erci se su pp le m en ta l juri sd ic ti on

ov er th e st at e la w co ns pi racy cl ai m s. On cro ss -m ot io ns fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, th e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed Mo or e’s m ot io n be cau se it co nc lu de d M o o re co ul d no t us e th e Mi ss ou ri tri al co ur t’s su pp res si on or de r to es ta bl is h Offi cer Mal ad y vi ol at ed hi s rig ht s vi a of fen si ve no n- m

ut ua l col la te ral es to pp el

. The di st ric t cou rt th en gr an te d Office r Mal ad y , Ch ie f Bu ll oc k, an d th e ci ty’ s su m m ary jud gm en t m ot io ns be cau se wit ho ut

co ll at eral es to pp el th ere was in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to su pp or t Mo or e’s cl ai m s ag ai ns t th em

. The di st ric t co ur t la te r en te red an or de r di sm is si ng th e un id en ti fie d de fen da nt s.

-5

-Mo or e ap pe al s on ly th e di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t to Offi cer Mal ad y , Ch ie f Bu ll oc k, an d th e ci ty. Thi s co ur t ha s juri sd ic ti on pu rs ua nt to 28 U.S.C. § 12 91

.

II

. DISCUSS IO N
Mo or e br ou gh t hi s cl ai m s ag ai ns t th e po li ce pu rs ua nt to 42 U.S.C. § 19 83
, whi ch au th or iz es a pr iv at e rig ht of act io n ag ai ns t th os e who
, u n d e r c o l or of la w, de pr iv e a ci ti zen of “ an y rig ht s, pr iv il eg es , or im m un it ie s se cu red by th e Co ns ti tu ti on

an d la ws.” The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d su m m ary jud gm en t to th e po li ce be cau se it fo un d
Offi cer Mal ad y was pr ot ect ed by th e do ct rin e of qu al ifi ed im m un it y

. W e rev ie w bo th

gr an ts of su m

m ary jud gm en t an d qu es ti on s of qu al ifi ed im m un it y de no vo

. See Hall
v. M o. Hwy . & Tran sp . Com m ’n, 23 5 F .3d 10 65 , 10 67 (8t h C ir. 2 00 0)

.

The qu al if

ie d im m uni ty doc tr ine pr ovi de s “ tha t gove rn m en t of fic ia ls pe rfo rm in g di sc ret io na ry fu nc ti on s ge ne ral ly are sh ie ld ed fro m li ab il it y fo r ci vi l da m ag es in so far

as th ei r co nd uc t do es no t vi ol at e cl earl y es ta bl is he d st at ut or y or co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s of wh i c h a r eas on ab le pe rs on wou ld ha ve kn own .” Harl ow v. Fi tz ge ral d, 45 7 U.S.
80 0, 81 8 (1 98 2)

. “ Offi ci al s are no t li ab le fo r ba d gu es se s in gr ay area s; th ey are li ab le
fo r tra ns gr es si ng br ig ht li ne s.” Am br os e v. You ng , 47 4 F.3 d 10 70
, 10 77 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (q uo ti ng Dav is v. Hall
, 37 5 F.3 d 70 3, 71 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ) (in te rn al q u o ta ti on

m ark s om it te d) ). Qua li fie d im m un it y prot ect s “ al l bu t th e pl ai nl y in co m pe te nt or th os e who kn owi ng ly vi ol at e th e la w.” Hun te r v. Bryant
, 50 2 U.S. 22 4, 22 9 (1 99 1) (q uo ti ng Mal le y v. Br ig gs , 47 5 U.S. 3 35 , 34 1 (1 98 6) ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

.

In an al y zi ng a cl ai m of qu al ifi ed im m un it y , we m ay ex am in e th e t w o ke y
pr on gs —wh et he r a rig ht was vi ol at e d a n d whe th er th e as se rte d rig ht was cl earl y

es ta bl is he d

— i n e i t h e r or de r. See Cam ret a v. Green e, 56 3 U.S. _

__ , _

__ , 1 31 S. Ct

. 20 20
, 2 0 3 1

- 3 2 (2 01 1)

. W e el ect to tre at th e co ns ti tu ti on al is su e fir st

. W he th er
qu al ifi ed im m

un it y ap pl ie s in th is cas e de pe nd s up on “ whe th er th e fact s al le ge d, ta ke n in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to [Mo or e], sh ow th at [Offi cer Mal ad y ’s] co nd uc t vi ol at ed

a c on st it ut io na l rig ht

. If so , t he n we de te rm in e whe th er th e co ns ti tu ti on al r i g h t w a s

-6

-cl earl y

est ab li sh ed at t he ti m e.” Nor ris v. Engl es , 49 4 F.3d 63 4, 63 7 (8t h Cir. 2 00 7) (q uo ti ng Fl owe rs v. Ci ty of Mi nn eap ol is
, 47 8 F.3 d 86 9, 87 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 )) (in te rn al

qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

.

Mo or e arg ue s th e di s t r i c t co ur t erre d in fai li ng to co nc lu de th e Mi ss ou ri tri al

co ur t’s su pp res si on or de r an d ev en tu al di sm is sa l of th e st at e cri m in al cas e ag ai ns t hi m

co nc lu si ve ly esta bl is he d t ha t h is co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s were vi ol at ed fo r th e pu rp os es of hi s § 19 83 cl ai m

. Alt ern at iv el y , Mo or e arg ue s th e di st ric t co ur t m is ta ke nl y 4

an al yzed hi s Fo ur th Am en dm en t cl ai m un de r th e warra nt -arr es t do ct rin e rat he r th an th e st op -an d- fri sk do ct rin e.

A. Col la tera l Es to ppel
The d i s t ric t co ur t he ld Mo or e co ul d no t rel y up on th e of fen si ve no nm

ut ua l

co ll at eral es to pp el do ct rin e to es ta bl is h th at Offi cer Mal ad y vi ol at ed Mo or e’s Fo ur th

an d Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t rig ht s. The di st ric t co ur t rel ie d up on th is co ur t’s fact ua ll y si m il ar de ci si on in Dun can v. Cl em en ts , whi ch req ui res , am on g ot he r th in gs , th at “ th e
pa rty ag ai ns t who m co ll at eral es to pp el is as se rte d [ w a s ] a pa rty or in pr iv it y wit h a
pa rty to th e pr io r ad

jud ic at io n” an d m

us t “ ha ve [h ad ] a fu ll an d fai r op po rtu ni ty to

The po li ce m ai nt ai n th e on ly is su e pr op erl y be fo re th is co ur t is th e co ll at eral 4

es to pp el is su e b e c a us e Mo or e di d no t rai se th e ot he rs in hi s br ie f in op po si ti on to

su m m ary jud gm en t. In su pp or t of th is co nt en ti o n , th e po li ce ci te ou r de ci si on s in Fjels ta v. Zog g Derm at ol og y , PLC, 48 8 F.3 d 80 4, 80 9 (8 th Ci r. 2 0 0 7) (rejec ti ng a cl ai m no t rai se d in pl ai nt iff ’s co m pl ai n t , a r gu ed in a su m

m ary jud gm en t br ie f or de ve lo pe d on ap pe al ), an d Hol la nd v. Sam ’s Cl ub
, 48 7 F.3 d 64 1, 64 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (h ol di n g d i s t r ic t co ur ts are “ no t ob li ga te d to wad e th ro ug h an d se arch th e en ti re

reco rd fo r so m e sp eci fic fact s whic h m ig ht su pp or t th e no nm ov in g par ty’ s cl ai m ”). Bo th Fjels ta an d Hol la nd are in ap po si te

. Unl ik e Fjels ta , t hi s cas e do es no t i n v o lv e

a di st in ct un de ve lo pe d cl ai m , an d th e is su es Mo or e ap pe al s were pr op erl y rai se d an d

ru l e d up on be lo w. Nor is th is a cas e li ke Hol la nd , b ecau se Mo or e ha s no t fai le d to de si gn at e th e rec or d e vi de nc e su pp or ti ng hi s ar gu m en ts

.

-7

-li ti ga te th e is su e in th e pr io r su it .” Dun can , 74 4 F.2 d 48
, 51 (8 th Ci r. 19 84 ) (ap pl y in g

Mi ss ou ri la w ). Bec au se “ [o ]nly th e St at e of Mi ss ou ri, no t [th e of fic er], ha d an in te res t 5
in th e ou tc o me o f t h e cri m in al pr oc eed in g ag ai ns t Dun can ; [th e of fic er’s] pe rs on al
in te res ts were n ot at s ta ke .” Id . a t 52

. W e th eref or e h el d t he off

ic er “ di d n ot ha ve a fu ll an d fa ir o pp or tu ni ty to l it ig at e” t he is su e in th e p rio r pr oc eed in g. Id . at 5 2- 53

.

Mo or e arg ue s th e di st ric t co ur t us ed th e wro ng el em en ts in it s an al y si s an d ci te s St at e v . Da ni el s, 78 9 S.W .2d 24 3, 2 44 -4 5 (M o. Ct . App . 19 90 ) as th e p ro pe r cas e to

ap pl y

. In Dan ie ls
, th e Mi ss ou ri in te rm ed ia t e ap pe ll at e co ur t di d no t req ui re pr iv it y

a n d, in st ead of th e “ fu ll an d fai r op po rtu ni ty t o li ti ga te th e is su e,” req ui red th at “ th e of fen si ve us e of co ll at eral es to pp el

. . . wou ld no t be un fai r to th e ” p a r t y be in g

e s t o pp ed

. Id

. Mo or e’s rel ia nc e on Dan ie ls is m is pl aced

. In Green v. Fred We b e r , In c., 25 4 S.W .3d 87 4, 88 4 (Mo

. 20 08 ), th e Su pr em e C ou rt of Mi ss ou ri st at ed it

“ fo ll ows th e ‘narro w us e of of fen si ve co ll at eral es to pp el ’

. . . [u nd er whi ch ] no pa rty

can be b o u nd by a jud gm en t un le ss sh e was in pr iv it y wit h th e pa rti es to th at jud gm en t.” Fu rth erm or e, ev en if Dan ie ls so m eh ow su rv iv es Green
, th e sa m e co nc ern s fo r fai rn es s to th e of

fic er th at th is co ur t art ic ul at ed in Dun can ap pl y to whet he r “ th e of fen si ve us e of co ll at eral es to pp e l wou ld no t be un fai r to th e” de fen da nt s he re. Mo or e’s co ll at eral est op pe l ar gu m en t l ack s m eri t.

B. Wa rra nt Arre st or Terr y S to p Mo or e cl ai m s hi s Fo ur th an d Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t rig ht s were vi ol at ed whe n th e di st ric t co ur t an al y zed hi s in it ia l co nt act wit h Offi cer Mal ad y as in vo lv in g an arre st

warra nt , r at he r th an as a warra nt le s s s e i z u r e un de r Terry v . Oh io , 3 92 U.S. 1 , 2 1- 22 (1 96 8)

. Mo or e’s arg um en t rel ie s up on th e in ad m is si bi li ty of Mo or e’s arre st warra nt

.

If Mi ss ou ri la w wou ld ba r rel it ig at io n of th e is su e in Mi ss ou ri co ur ts , th e Fu ll 5 Fai th an d C red it st at ut e, 28 U.S.C. § 1 73 8, g en eral ly requ ire s fe de ral co ur ts to gi ve effe ct to th e st at e co ur t jud gm en t. Se e H ari ng v. Pro si se , 46 2 U.S. 30 6, 31 2- 13 (1 98 3)

.
-8

-Bec au se th e di st ric t cou rt di d no t err in ad m it ti ng th e warra nt , an d bec au se an y erro r

wou ld ha ve be en ha rm le ss , Mo or e’s arg um en t fa il s.

Ove r Mo or e’s ob

jecti on , th e di st ric t co ur t rece iv ed a do cu m en t pu rp or ti ng to be

a warra nt fo r Mo or e’s arre st

. W e acco rd th e di st r i c t c o u r t ’s ev id en ti ary ru li ng s

su bs ta nt ia l de fere nc e, an d rev ie w fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n. See Crai g Out do or Adv er., In c. v. Viac om Out do or , In c., 52 8 F.3 d 10 01
, 10 13 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ). Mo or e m ad e th e fo ll owi ng ob

jecti on s to th e warra nt ’s ad m is si bi li ty, (1 ) th e warra nt was no t

au th en ti cat ed
, (2 ) th ere was no fo un da ti on fo r a fin di ng th e warra nt was is su ed up on
pr ob ab le cau se , (3) th ere was no fo un da ti on th e warra nt was i ss ue d a nd ou ts ta nd in g

on Octo be r 4, 20 04
, (4 ) th e warr a n t was he ars ay , an d (5 ) th e warra nt was irr el ev an t b ecau se Offi cer Mal ad y “ ne ve r ha d, sa w or kn ew th e te rm s of th e al le ge d a r r e s t

warra nt pr io r to th e Octo be r 9, 20 04 se iz ur e of Mo or e an d th e

. . . po li ce di sp at ch er di d

no t o ffer an y

ev id en ce o f ‘pro ba bl e cau se ’ in th is pro ceed in g.”

The di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in ad m it ti ng th e warra n t

. The warra nt is se lfau th en ti cat in g un de r Fed

. R. Evi d. 90 2( 1) an d (4 ), bo th as a pu bl ic do cu m en t un de r

se al an d as a pu bl ic do cu m en t si gn ed by an of fic ia l ( jud ge , cl erk
, an d sh eri ff). The

warra nt st at es th e is su in g co ur t fo un d pr ob ab le cau se fo r arre st an d is s i g n e d by a jud ge

. As a pu bl ic reco rd
, th e warra nt is cl earl y ex cep te d fro m th e he ars ay ru le

. See
Fed

. R. Evi d. 80 3( 8)

. The warra nt is rel ev an t to sh ow th e po li ce reas on ab ly be li ev ed
th ere was a warra nt for Mo or e’s arre st

.

Mo or e fau lt s Offi cer Mal ad y be cau se Mo or e co nt en ds a rad io di sp at ch “ was no t

su ffi ci en tl y rel ia bl e to es ta bl is h ei th er ‘pro ba bl e cau se t o a r r e s t ’ or ‘a reas on ab le

su sp ic io n to de ta in ’ Mo or e be cau se [th e po li ce] pr es en te d no ev id en ce in th e su m m ary jud gm en t pro ceed in g from th e

. . . po li ce dis pa tc he r to es ta bl is h th at th e in fo rm at io n

. . . was r e l i ab le .” It is no t ne ces sa ry fo r th e di sp at ch er or th e of fic er wit h act ua l

po ss es si on of th e warra nt to te st ify as t o i ts rel ia bi li ty. “ The rel ev an t qu es ti on

. . . is
th e ob jecti ve (al be it fact -s pe ci fic ) qu es ti on whe th er a reas on ab le of fic er co ul d ha ve

-9

-be li ev ed [th e of fic er’s] warra nt le ss se arch to be la wfu l, in li gh t of cl earl y es ta bl is he d
la w a n d th e in fo rm at io n th e se arch in g of fic ers po ss es se d.” And ers on v. Crei gh to n, 48 3 U.S. 63 5, 64 1 (1 98 7)

. Thi s co ur t ha s lo ng he ld th at “ th e kn owl ed ge of on e of fic er is th e kn owl ed ge of a ll an d t ha t i n th e op erat io n of an inv es ti ga ti ve or po li ce agen cy th e co ll ect iv e kn owl ed ge an d t he av ai la bl e ob jecti ve fact s are th e cri te ria to be us ed
in as se ss in g pr ob ab le cau se

. The arre st in g of fic er hi m se lf ne ed no t po ss es s al l of th e

av ai la bl e in fo rm at io n.” Uni te d St at es v. S t r a t t o n , 45 3 F.2 d 36
, 37 (8 th Ci r. 19 72 ).
Nor ne ed th e of

fic er po ss es s th e warra nt it se lf

. See Fed

. R. Cri m

. P. 4( c)(3 ) an d
ad vi so ry co m

m it te e no te (“ It is ob vi ou sl y im po ss ib le fo r a warra nt to b e in th e
po ss es si on of ev ery of

fic er who

. . . m ig ht fin d hi m se lf in a po si ti on to ap pr eh en d th e fu gi ti ve .”). The wa rran t was pro pe rly adm it te d.

Eve n if the di st ric t cou rt had ad m it te d th e warra nt in erro r, Mo or e su ffer ed no
pr ejud ic e. Ass um in g th e warra nt were in ad m is si bl e, Mo or e co nt en ds hi s arre st m us t be an al y zed un de r Terry. Terry req ui res , am on g o th er t hi ng s, t ha t o ffi cers po ss es s a

reas on ab le su sp ic io n th at a pe rs on ha s be en or wil l be en g a g e d in cri m in al act iv it y be fo re a warra nt le ss st op m a y oc cu r. See Terry, 39 2 U.S. at 21 -2 2. Mo or e in si st s th ere is a fact ua l di sp ut e reg ard in g whe th er Offi cer Mal ad y ha d reas on ab le su sp ic io n
to de ta in Mo or e. No s uc h fact ua l di sp ut e ex is ts . Reg ard le ss of wh et he r th e warra nt

was va li d an d ad m is si bl e, no th in g in th e reco rd wou ld cau se a reas on ab le of fi c e r in
Mal ad y ’s p o s i t i o n t o th in k th e warra nt was in va li d. The di sp at ch er to ld Offi cer Mal ad y th ere was a warra nt fo r Mo or e’s arre st

. The “ ti ps te r,” who Mo or e al le ge d in
hi s co m pl ai nt was Mo or e’s so n Ja s o n , t o l d Offi cer Mal ad y th ere was a warra nt fo r Mo or e’s a r res t an d Mo or e was se ll in g dr ug s at hi s ap art m en t. Not wit hs ta nd in g Mo o re’s at ta ck s on Ja so n’s cred ib il it y , a reas on ab le of fic er wou ld be jus ti fie d in
in ferr in g th at a so n m ig ht be in po ss es si on of rel ia bl e in fo rm at io n ab ou t hi s fat he r,
pa rti cu la rly after di sp at ch co nf irmed th e ex is te nc e o f th e arr es t war ran t.

-1 0-C. Out- of -Ti m e Bri ef
M oo re arg ue s th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in gr an ti ng th e po li ce’s

m ot io n to fil e th ei r br ie f in op po si ti on to Mo or e’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t ou t of ti m e an d de nyin g Mo or e’s m ot io n to st rik e th e br ie f. As Mo or e ad m it s, ru li ng s on

m ot io ns to st rik e are co m m it te d to th e d i s t r i c t co ur t’s so un d di sc ret io n. See, e.g ., Bran no n v . Luco Mo p C o., 5 21 F.3d 84 3, 8 47 (8t h C ir. 2 00 8)

.

Mo or e is un ab le to sh ow any m at eri al pr ejud ic e res ul ti ng fro m th e la te fil in g. Mo or e co nt en ds he was pr ejud ic ed be cau se , if th e co ur t ha d no t al lo wed th e

su bm is si on , hi s su m

m ary jud gm en t m ot io n w o u l d ha ve be en gr an te d an d he wou ld
ha ve won th e la wsu it

. F i r s t , s u ch a win un de r th e ci rcu m st an ces is sp ecu la ti ve

. S e co nd
, we de te ct no erro r in th e di st ric t co ur t’s go od cau se fin di ng an d co n c l u d e Mo or e’s lo ss of an y te ch ni cal li ti ga ti on ad va nt ag e he m ig ht ha ve en joy ed ha d th e br ie f
be en st ric ke n was ou twei gh ed by th e se ve re pe na lt y th e po li ce wou ld ha ve su ffer ed

. See Ch or os ev ic v. Met li fe Ch oi ces , 60 0 F.3 d 93 4, 94 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (a ffi rm in g ch al le ng e of di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of le av e to fil e an swe r). See al so St al ey v. Owens
, 36 7 F. App ’x 10 2, 10 5- 06 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 10 ) (u np ub li sh ed pe r cu ria m ) (f i n d i ng no
pr ejud ic e in th e d i s t r i c t co ur t al lo win g a la te fil in g of th e ev en tu al ly di sp os it iv e

su m m ary jud gm en t m ot io n)

. Fi na ll y , Mo or e al so co nt en ds he was pr ejud ic ed by no t be in g al lo wed to res po nd t o t h e la te -fi le d arg um en ts in op po si ti on to hi s m ot io n fo r

su m m ary jud gm en t. W e reject th is arg um en t be cau se Mo or e ne ve r req ue st ed le av e to

res po nd to th e b rie f.

D. Fai lu re to Tra in an d Supe rv is e Cla ims
Mo or e’s cl ai m s ag a i n s t Ch ie f Bu ll oc k an d th e ci ty are ba se d up on al le ge d
fai lu res to tra in an d su pe rv is e Offi cer Mal ad y , as well as po li ci es or cu st om s whi ch

ga ve ris e to Mo or e’s in

juri es

. “ Thi s ci rcu it ha s co ns is te nt ly reco gn iz ed a ge ne ral ru le
th at , in or de r fo r m

un ic ip al li ab il it y to at ta ch
, in di vi du al li ab il it y fir st m us t b e fo un d

on an un de rlyin g su bs ta nt iv e cl ai m .” McC oy v. Ci ty of Mo nt ic el lo
, 41 1 F.3 d 92 0, 92 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ). Si m il arl y , to m ai nt ai n an act io n fo r tra in in g or su pe rv is or y li ab il it y ,

-1 1-a pl ai nt iff m us t sh o w t h e fai lu re to tra in or su pe rv is e cau se d th e in jury. See, e.g ., And rews v. Fo wler
, 98 F.3 d 10 69
, 10 78 (8 th Ci r. 19 96 ). Bec a u s e M oo re fai le d to

es ta bl is h Offi cer Mal ad y vi ol at ed M o o r e’s co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s, Mo or e can no t

m ai nt ai n t hi s ac ti on ag ai ns t ei th er Ch ie f Bu ll oc k o r th e ci ty.

II I. CONCLUSI ON
W e aff irm th e d is tri ct co ur t’s jud gm en t.

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

-1 2-