# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

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

No. 1 7- 33 88

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

Mi cah B. Rig gs

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

ff - App el le e

v.

Ro be rt Gi bb s, i n h is off

ic ia l ca pa ci ty as a Kan sa s C it y , Mis so ur i Po li ce Dep art m en t Offi cer, an d, as an in di vi du al ; Dav id Barb ou r, in hi s o ffi ci al cap aci ty

as a Kan sa s C it y , Mis so ur i Po li ce Dep art m en t Offi cer, an d, as an in di vi du al ; Mi ch ael Feag an s, i n h is off ic ia l ca pa ci ty as a Kan sa s C it y , Mis so ur i Po li ce Dep art m en t Offi cer, an d, as an in di vi du al ; Al an W ha le y , in hi s o ffi ci al cap aci ty as

a Kan sa s C it y , Mis so ur i Po li ce Dep art m en t Offi cer, an d, as an in di vi du al ; Br ad

Dum it , in hi s o ffi ci al cap aci ty as a Kan sa s C it y , Mis so ur i Po li ce Dep art m en t
Offi cer, an d, as an in di vi du al ; Ch ris Oni k, i n h is off ic ia l ca pa ci ty as a Kan sa s C it y , Mi ss ou ri P ol ic e Dep art m en t Offi cer, an d, as an in di vi du al ; Ted dy Tay lo r, in hi s of fic ia l ca pa ci ty as a Kan sa s C it y , Mis so ur i Po li ce Dep art m en t Offi cer, an d, as an in di vi du al ; Ch ris to ph er To ig o, i n h is off ic ia l ca pa ci ty as a Kan sa s C it y , Mis so ur i

Po li ce Dep art m en t Offi cer, an d, as an in di vi du al

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

an ts - App el la nt

s

__ __ __ __ __ __

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 - Kan sa s C it y

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Nov em

be r 13 , 20 18

Fi le d: May 8, 20 19

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re GRUENDER, KELLY , and GRASZ, Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __KELLY, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

Mi cah Ri gg s’s bu si ne ss es were se arch ed th ree ti m es by th e Kan sa s Ci ty Po li ce

D e p a r t men t (KCPD). He su ed un de r 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 fo r al le ge d Fo ur th a n d

Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t vi ol at io ns as well as va rio us co m m on la w cau se s of acti on

. Am on g ot he rs , Dete ct iv e Ro be rt Gib bs

, Dete ct iv e Ch ris Oni k, Serg ean t Brad Dum it

, Dete ct iv e Ted dy Tay lo r, Dete ct iv e Ch ris to ph er Toi go , Offi cer Mi ch ael Feag an s, an d

Offi cer Dav id Barb ou r of th e KCPD so ug ht su m m ary jud gm en t on th e ba si s of

qu al ifi ed im m

un it y , whi ch th e di st ric t co ur t gr an te d in pa rt an d de ni ed in pa rt. The 1

of fic ers no w ap pe al th e di st ric t co ur t’s o r d e r d en y in g qu al ifi ed im m un it y

. W e

di sm is s fo r la ck of ju ris di ct io n.

I

A

W e dr aw th e fo ll owi ng ba ck gr ou nd fact s fro m th e di st ric t co ur t’s su m m ary jud gm en t op in io n, whi ch we m us t acce pt as tru e fo r pu rp os es of de ci di ng th is ap pe al

. See Bu rn ik el v

. F o n g , 8 8 6 F.3 d 70 6, 70 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 18 ) (“ [W] e acce pt as tru e th e

fact s th at th e di st ric t co ur t fo un d were ad eq ua te ly su pp or te d, as well as th e fact s th at

th e di st ric t co ur t li ke ly as su m ed

, to th e ex te nt th ey are no t ‘bla ta nt ly co nt rad ic te d by

th e reco rd .’ ” (q uo ti ng Tho m ps on v. Mu rray, 80 0 F.3 d 97 9, 98 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ))).

Ri gg s own ed two bu si ne ss es , Co ffee W on k an d W on k Exc ha ng e, on th e f i r st flo or

of 35 35 Bro ad way , Kan sa s Ci ty, Mi ss ou ri. Co ffee W on k was lo cat e d at 35 35 D

Bro ad way an d W on k Exc ha ng e at 35 35 A Bro ad way

. Ri gg s al so ren te d an ot he r un it

, Su it e 2 01 , on th e se co nd flo or

.

The Hon or ab le Fern an do J. Gait an , Jr

., Uni t e d S t a t e s Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1

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

-2

-On Sep te m be r 27

, 20 10

, Offi cers Barb ou r an d Feag an s rece iv ed a bu rg la ry cal l

fro m th e own er of Su it e 20 0 at 35 35 Bro ad way

. W he n th ey arri ve d, th ey in ve st ig at ed

th e bu rg la ry, b u t were un ab le to fin d th e bu rg la r. The y m et Ch ris to ph er Lon g, th e

bu il di ng m an ag er, who acco m pa ni ed Offi cer Barb ou r as he be ga n to se arch th e

se co nd flo or

. Lon g op en ed th e do or to Su it e 20 1, a l t h o u g h t h e re were no si gn s of

pr io r en try. Afte r Lon g op en ed th e do or , Offi cer Barb ou r sa w la b eq ui pm en t in Su it e

20 1. Offi ce r B a r b o u r d i d no t se e an y th in g th at le d hi m to be li ev e th at th e la b was

il le ga l or an act iv e m et h la b, bu t he di d reco gn iz e ch em ic al s m ark ed wit h a sk ul l an d

cro ss bo ne s, whi ch he be li ev ed were da ng ero us

. He an d Offi cer Feag an s th en as ke d

Met ro Met h Dru g Task Fo rce to pr oc es s th e la b, whi ch it di d wit ho ut Ri gg s’s co ns en t.

Ite m s wer e se iz ed fro m

Su it e 2 01

.

Tha t sa m e da y , Dete ct iv e Toi go rece iv ed a cal l th at a ro bb ery ha d oc cu rred at

C of fee W on k. W he n he arri ve d, he in te rv ie wed th e Co ffee W on k st or e c l e r k a n d

be ga n pr oc es si ng th e sc en e. He lo ok ed be hi nd th e co un te r fo r fin ge rp rin ts

. He al so

wen t to th e pa rk in g ga rag e ad jacen t to th e bu il di ng , whe re he fo un d so m e Sy n br an d

in cen se

. He cal le d Dete ct iv e Ta yl o r, who th en arri ve d at th e sc en e wit h Dete ct iv e

Acto n

. At so m e po in t, Dete ct iv e Toi go sh owe d Dete ct iv e Tay lo r pa ck ag es of Sy n

in cen se lo cat ed be hi nd th e co un te r at Co ffee W on k. The y di d no t im m ed ia te ly kn ow

whe th er th e Sy n in cen se was il le ga l. Ri gg s al so arri ve d at Co ffee W on k. Dete ct iv es

Toi go , Tay lo r an d Acto n se iz ed Sy n in cen se fro m be hi nd th e Co ffee W on k co un te r.

B

In 20 12

, Gary Majo rs , m an ag er of th e ci ty au th or it y in ch arg e of reg ul at in g

li qu or li cen se s, rece iv ed a ti p th at a bu si ne ss at 35 th an d Bro ad way wit h “ co ffee ” in

it s n a me was se ll in g K2, a synth et ic can na bi no id

. Majo rs se arch ed th e el ect ro ni c

da ta ba se an d d e t e r m in ed th at an es ta bl is hm en t na m ed “ Co ffee W on k” at 35 35

Bro ad way ha d a l i qu or li cen se

. At Majo rs ’s in st ru ct io n, an em pl oyee e-m ai le d

Serg ean t Dum it an d ex pl ai ne d t h a t M a jors ha d rece iv ed a co m

pl ai nt reg ard in g K2

-3

-sa le s at Co ffee W on k, an es ta bl is hm en t th at se ll s al co ho l. So m e ti m e la te r, Majo rs

real iz ed th at Co ffee W o n k d i d no t ha ve a li qu or li cen se , bu t he m ad e no effo rt to

in fo rm KCPD of

hi s m is ta ke

.

On Octo be r 3, 20 12

, Dete ct iv e W ha le y en te red Co ffee W on k to at t e mp t a

co nt ro ll ed bu y

. He as ke d fo r ei th er Mr. Hap py or Mr. Green

. The cl erk ex pl ai ne d

th at Co ffee W on k di d no t ha ve ei th er of th es e br an ds of in cen se an d so ld hi m Rem ix

, whi ch was st or ed un de r th e co un te r an d ou t of si gh t. Dete ct iv e W ha le y be li ev ed th e

it em he pu rch as ed was co nt rab an d be cau se of it s pa ck ag in g an d th e way it was so ld

. S h o r tl y aft er Dete ct iv e W ha le y pu rch as ed th e Rem ix

, Dete ct iv es Oni k an d Gib bs

en te red Co ffee W on k. Serg ean t Dum it fo ll owe d th em

. Dete ct iv e Gib bs co ul d no t se e

th e Rem ix su pp ly u nt il he wen t be hi nd th e co un te r ne ar t he reg is te r, at whi ch po in t

he sei zed al l th at he fo un d. Dete ct iv e Gib bs al so sei zed an en ve lo pe ful l o f m on ey , whi ch in cl ud ed th e m on ey Dete ct iv e W ha le y us ed to bu y th e Rem ix

. Dete ct iv e Oni k

se iz ed Rem ix fou nd in a ba ck roo m

.

C

On Aug us t 1, 20 14

, Ri gg s br ou gh t su it ag ai ns t th e of fic ers in vo lv ed in th e 20 10

se arch an d th e 20 12 rai d, cl ai m in g th at bo th warra nt le ss se arch es vi ol at ed hi s rig ht s

un de r th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t. On Feb ru ary 2, 20 17

, th e of fic ers m ov ed fo r su m

m ary jud gm en t on th e ba si s of qu al ifi ed im m un it y , whi ch th e di st ric t co ur t gr an te d in pa rt

an d de ni ed in pa rt. As is rel ev an t to th is ap pe al

, th e d i s t r i c t c ou rt co nc lu de d th at

Offi cers Barb ou r an d Feag an s were no t en ti tl ed to su m m ary jud gm en t as to li ab il it y

ari si ng ou t of th e 20 10 se arch an d se iz ur e of it em s in Su it e 20 1 be cau se qu es ti on s of

m at eri al fact ex is t as to whe th er Lon g ha d Ri gg s’s co ns en t to op en th e do or to Su it e

20 1 an d whe th er th e po li ce of fic ers co ul d ha ve reas on ab ly be li ev ed th at th ey ha d

co ns en t to se arch Su it e 20 1. The di st ric t co ur t al so co nc lu de d th at Dete ct iv es Toi go

an d Tay lo r were no t en ti tl ed to su m m ary ju dg m en t as to li ab il it y ari si ng ou t of th e

20 10 se iz ur e of in cen se fro m be hi nd th e Co ffee W on k co un te r be cau se qu es ti on s of

-4

-m at eri al fact ex is t as to whe th er th ey ha d co ns en t or reas on ab ly be li ev ed th ey h ad

co ns en t to se iz e th e in cen se

. Fi na l l y, th e di st ric t co ur t de te rm in ed th at Dete ct iv es

W ha le y , Gib bs

, an d Oni k an d Serg ean t Dum it were no t en ti tl ed to su m m ary jud gm en t

be cau se qu es ti on s of m at eri al fact ex is t as to th e pu rp os e of th e 20 12 se arch an d

whe th er it was reas on ab le fo r de fen da nt s to be li ev e th at Co ffee W on k ha d a li qu or

li cen se on ce t he sea rch be ga n. Th e o ffi cers ap pe al

.

II

“ An or de r de nyin g qu al ifi ed im m un it y can be im m ed ia te ly ap pe al ab le de sp it e

th e fact th at it is in te rlo cu to ry .” Mal la k v. Ci ty of Bax te r, 82 3 F.3 d 44 1, 44 5 (8 th Ci r.

20 16 ). Qua li fie d im m

un it y sh ie ld s pu bl ic of

fic ia ls fro m § 19 83 li ab il it y “ un le ss (1 )

t h e e v i d en ce, vi ewed in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to [th e pl ai nt iff ], es ta bl is he s a

vi ol at io n of a co ns ti tu ti on al or st at ut or y rig ht

, an d (2 ) th e rig ht was cl earl y es ta bl is he d

at th e ti m e of th e vi ol at io n, su ch th at a reas on ab le of fic ia l wou ld ha ve kn own th at hi s

act io ns were un la wfu l.” Bl azek v. Ci ty of Io wa Ci ty, 76 1 F.3 d 92 0, 92 2– 23 (8 th Ci r.

20 14 ). “ Our juri sd ic ti on to co ns id er an ap pe al of an or de r de nyin g su mm a r y jud gm en t ba se d on qu al ifi ed im m un it y is li m it ed to th e pu rel y le ga l is su e of whe th er

th e fact s al le ge d su pp or t a cl ai m of vi ol at io n of cl e a r l y es ta bl is he d la w.” Berr y v.

Dos s, 90 0 F.3 d 10 17

, 10 2 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 18 ) (cl ean ed up ). W e do “ no t ha ve juri sd ic ti on to co ns id er t h e a p p e al if ‘at th e he art of th e arg um en t is a di sp ut e of

fact

. ’” Aus ti n v. Lon g, 77 9 F.3 d 52 2, 52 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ) (q uo ti ng Pace v. Ci ty of

Des Mo in es , 20 1 F.3 d 10 50

, 10 53 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 )); se e al so Berr y , 90 0 F.3 d at 10 21
(“ [D]efend an ts th at ha ve be en d e n ie d qu al ifi ed im m un it y can no t crea te ap pe ll at e juri sd ic ti on by us in g qu al ifi ed im m un it y ve rb ia ge to cl oa k fact ua l di sp ut es as a le ga l

is su e.”). If de fen da nt s are “ si m pl y arg u i n g t h at th e pl ai nt iff of fere d in su ffi ci en t

ev id en ce to cr e a t e a m at eri al is su e of fact ” fo r tri al

, we la ck juri sd ic ti on

. W hi te v.

McKi nl ey , 51 9 F .3d 80 6, 8 13 (8t h C ir. 2 00 8)

.

-5

-W e co nc lu de th a t w e la ck juri sd ic ti on ov er Offi cers Barb ou r an d Feag an s’

ap pe al

. The y cl ai m th at th ey are ent it le d to qu al ifi ed im m un it y ag ai ns t an y li ab il it y

ari si ng ou t of th e warra nt le ss se arch an d se iz ur e of it em s in Su it e 20 1 be cau se Ri gg s

p u t f o rth in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to di sp ut e th at Lon g rep res en te d to Offi cer Barb o u r

th at he ha d a ut ho rit y

to op en th e d oo r. They co nc ed e th at th e le ga li ty o f th e se arch

an d se iz u r e

— a n d th us th ei r qu al ifi ed -imm un it y de fen se — de pe nd s en ti rel y on

Lon g’s ap pa ren t au th or it y to op en th e do or

. The di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d t h a t

“ qu es ti on s of m at eri al fact ex is t as to whe th er Lon g ha d pl ai nt iff ’s c o n s en t to op en

th e do or an d whe th er th e po li ce of fic e r s c o u ld ha ve reas on ab ly be li ev ed th ey ha d

co ns en t to se arch th e pr em is es .” W e la ck juri sd i c t io n to co ns id er th es e ge nu in e

di sp ut es of m at eri al fact

. See W al la ce v. Ci ty of Alex an de r, 84 3 F.3 d 76 3, 76 6 (8 th

Ci r. 20 16 ) (“ [I]ss ue s su ch as ‘the ex is te nc e, or no ne xi st en ce, of a tri ab le is su e of fact ’

a r e n o t rev ie wab le ” at th is jun ct ur e. (q uo ti ng Jo hn so n v. Jo ne s, 51 5 U.S. 30 4, 31 6
(1 99 5) )).

W e si m il arl y la ck juri sd ic ti on to co ns id er Dete ct iv es Toi go a n d Ta y lo r’s

ap pe al

. The y arg ue th at th ey are en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y in co nn ect io n wit h th e

20 10 se iz ur e of S yn i n cen se fro m be hi nd th e Co ffee W on k co un te r be cau se th e

in cen se was i n “ pl ai n v ie w.” Und er the pl ai n- vi ew do ct rin e, “ of fic ers m ay se iz e an

ob ject with ou t a warra nt if th ey are lawfu ll y in a po si ti on fro m

whi ch th ey vi ew th e

ob ject, th e in cri m in at in g ch arac te r of th e ob ject is im med i a t e l y ap pa ren t, an d th e

of fic ers ha ve a la wfu l rig ht of acce ss to th e ob ject.” Uni te d St at es v. Bro wn, 63 5 F.3 d

65 6, 66 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Mu ha m m ad

, 60 4 F.3 d 10 22

, 10 27
(8 th Ci r. 20 10 )). Co ns en t m ay pr ov id e th e ba si s fo r la wfu l pr es en ce an d la wfu l

acce ss to th e it em se iz ed

. See, e.g ., PPS, In c. v. Fau lk ne r Ct y ., 6 3 0 F.3 d 10 98

, 11 03 –0 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (p la in -v ie w do ct rin e su p p o rte d se iz ur e whe re pa wn sh op

m an ag er co ns en te d to of

fic er’s pr es en ce). “ Onc e gi ve n, [h owe ve r,] co ns en t to se arch

m ay be wit hd rawn .” Uni te d S ta te s v . San de rs , 42 4 F .3d 76 8, 7 74 (8t h C ir. 2 00 5)

.

-6

-The pa rti es do no t di sp ut e th at th e Sy n in cen se wou ld ha ve be en in pl ai n vi ew

whe n Dete ct iv e Toi go fir st pa ss ed be hi nd th e co un te r du rin g th e co ur se of hi s ro bb ery

in ve st ig at io n. The pa rti es al so ag ree th at th e Co ffee Wo n k st or e cl erk ’s c on se nt to

in ve st ig at e th e ro bb ery ga ve Dete ct iv e To i g o a la wfu l rig ht of acce ss to th e area

be h i nd th e co un te r at th at ti m e. Bu t Dete ct iv e Toi go di d no t se iz e th e Sy n in cen se

du rin g hi s in it ia l se arch

, an d th e fact ua l ci rcu m st an ces su rro un di ng th e la te r se iz ur e

of th e Sy n in cen se are he av il y di sp ut ed

. Accep ti ng Ri gg s’s ve rs io n of th e ev en ts as

tru e, he un eq ui vo cal ly wit hd rew co ns en t to se iz e th e Sy n in cen se lo cat ed be hi nd th e

co un te r an d th e se iz ur e was acco rd in gl y un la wfu l. See San de rs , 42 4 F.3 d at 77 4– 77

. Ana lyzin g th e fact ua l reco rd to res ol ve th es e ge nu in e fact ua l di sp ut es wou ld ex ceed

th e sc op e o f ou r li m it ed rev ie w. See Ber ry , 90 0 F .3d at 1 02 1.

Fi na ll y , we la ck juri sd ic ti on ov er Serg ean t Dum it a n d D e t ect iv es W ha le y , Gib bs

, an d Oni k’s ap pe al

. The of fic ers arg ue th at t h e y are en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed

im m un it y ag ai ns t li ab il it y ari si ng ou t of th e 20 12 warra nt le ss se arch of Co ffee W on k

be ca u s e R i g g s di d no t m ak e a su bs ta nt ia l sh owi ng th at th e ad m in is tra ti ve se arch

ex cep ti on do es no t ap pl y

. A warra nt le ss ad m in is tra ti ve se arch “ is co ns ti tu ti on al if

. . . th e ru le s go ve rn in g th e se arch of fer an ad eq ua te su bs ti tu te fo r th e fo ur th am en dm en t

warra nt req ui rem en t.” Uni te d St at es v. Kn i gh t, 30 6 F.3 d 53 4, 53 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ).

Howev er, th e of

fic ers co nc ed e th a t t h i s ex cep ti on do es no t ap pl y whe n th e

ad m in is tra ti ve se arch is a m ere s ub te rfu ge for cri m in al in ve st ig at io n. Se e Ash cro ft

v. al -Kid d, 56 3 U.S. 73 1, 73 6 (2 01 1) (n ot in g th at in ad m in is tra ti ve -s earc h cas es

“ ‘actu al m ot iv at io ns ’ do m at te r”) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Kni gh ts

, 5 3 4 U

. S

. 11 2,

12 2 (2 00 1) ). On a p p e a l

, th ey as k th is co ur t to di sr eg ard th e di st ric t co ur t’s

de te rm in at io n th at Ri gg s “ pr es en te d su bs ta nt ia l fact s su pp or ti ng hi s arg um en t th at

th ere was no real ‘dua l pu rp os e’ fo r th is se arch ” an d, in st ead

, co nc lu de th at Ri gg s ha s

pr es en te d in su ff

i c i e n t e vi de nc e th at th e se arch was no t at le as t in pa rt a “ ta ve rn

ch eck ” in or de r to de feat su m m ary jud gm en t. Bu t th is ki nd of “ fact -in te ns i ve

arg um en t[] am ou nt [s ] to no th in g m or e th an [a] pr oh ib it ed ‘I di dn ’t do it !’” defe ns e.

Heart la nd Acad

. Cm ty. Ch ur ch v. W ad dl e, 59 5 F.3 d 79 8, 80 7 (8 th C i r

. 2 0 1 0)

-7

-The refo re th is fact ua l arg um en t, to o, is be y on d ou r li m it ed rev ie w. See W al la ce, 84 3

F.3 d a t 7 66

.

Bec au se m at eri al di sp ut es of f a c t are at th e he art of th e of fic ers ’ ap pe al

, we

di sm is s fo r la ck of ju ris di ct io n.

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

-8

-