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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 4- 30 74

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Tho m as A. Bowd en ,

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

ff - App el le e ,

v.

St ev e Me in be rg ; Pa tri ck Hawki ns ; Ch ris Hoff m an ,

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

an t s,

Vern on Mart in
,

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

an t - Ap pe ll an t ,

Ben jam in Sim m on s; Aaro n Gyuric a; W es W ag ne r,

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

an t s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 4- 30 75

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Tho m as A. Bowd en ,

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

ff - App el le e ,

v.

St ev e Me in be rg ; Pa tri ck Hawki ns ; Ch ris Hoff m an ,

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

an ts - App el la nt

s ,Vern on Mart in ; Be njam in Sim m on s; Aaro n Gyuric a,

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

an t s,

W es W ag ne r,

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

an t - Ap pe ll an t

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal s fr om

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - St . Lou is

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Apri l 1 6, 2 01 5 Fil ed : Au gu st 25 , 20 15

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re MUR PHY, COLLOTO N, and KELLY , Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
COLLOTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

Tho m as Bo wde n su ed se ve ral l a w e nf or cem en t of

fic ers an d th e co un ty cl erk
fro m Je ffer so n Co un ty, Mi ss ou ri, al le gi ng , am on g ot he r cl ai m s, th at th ey vi ol at ed hi s rig ht s un de r th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t. Bo wde n as se rts th at Dep ut y Sh eri ff Vern on Mar ti n dr aft ed
, an d th e rem ai ni ng de fen da nt s cau se d to be dr aft ed
, an affi da vi t in

su pp or t of a req ue st fo r an arre s t w a r r a n t th at le d to Bo wde n’s se iz ur e wit ho ut

pr ob ab le cau se

.

The de fen da nt s m ov ed fo r su m m ary jud gm en t o n th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t cl ai m s ba se d on qu a l i f

i e d im m un it y

. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n, bu t we

co nc lu de th at th e fact s ta k e n i n th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to Bo wde n do no t sh ow a

-2

-vi ol at io n of hi s co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s. W e th eref or e rev ers e th e de ci si on of th e di st ric t

co ur t.

I.

In a qu al ifi ed im m

un it y ap pe al
, we ha v e juri sd ic ti on to res ol ve pu rel y le ga l
is su es ba se d on th e fact s as su m ed by th e di st ric t co ur t, or fact s li ke ly as su m ed by th e

co ur t, whe n th e reco rd is vi ewed in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab l e t o t h e no n- m ov an t.
Jo hn so n v. Jo ne s , 51 5 U.S. 30 4, 31 3, 31 9 (1 99 5)

. W e th eref or e reci te th e fact s in th e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to Bo wde n.

Ben jam in Si m

m on s an d Aaro n Gy

ur ic a were fis hi ng on a br i d g e n e a r Bo wde n’s pr op ert y in ru ral Mi ss ou ri in 20 09

. Bo wde n sh ou te d to th e m en to id en ti fy
th em se lv es , an d th en fir ed a sh ot gu n fro m hi s ba ck de ck whe n th ey fai le d to res po nd

. Afte r th e gu ns ho t, Bo wde n an d Si m m on s en ga ge d in a he at ed ve rb al al te rcat io n, du rin g whi ch Bo wde n was ho ld in g hi s sh ot gu n. Bo wde n and Si m m on s each cal le d
th e p ol ic e, an d M art in was d is pa tc he d t o i nv es ti ga te

.

Mar ti n fir st sp ok e wit h Si m m on s an d Gyuric a at th e res id en ce of Si m m on s’s

g ran dm ot he r, Barb ara Voyles

. Si m m on s an d Gy

ur ic a rep or te d th ei r be li ef th a t
Bo wde n sh o t a t th em on th e br id ge

. The y ex pl ai ne d th at th ey he ard a gu ns ho t an d
th en sa w le av es fal li ng in fro nt of th em aft er the bl as t. Voyles st at ed th at sh e co ul d
cal l Howar d W ag ne r, th e Je ffer so n Co un ty ci rcu it cl erk
, to se e wha t Voyles co ul d do

.

Mar ti n ne xt sp ok e wit h Bo wde n. B owd en ad m it te d th at he ha d fir ed hi s sh ot gu n, bu t sa id th at he sh ot th e weap on in a di rect io n away fro m Si m m on s an d Gy ur ic a. Mar ti n rel ay ed th es e ci rcu m st an ces by te le ph on e to hi s supervi so r, Co rp or al
Ch ris Hof fm an

. Hof

fm an or de red Mar ti n to se iz e th e sh ot gu n an d to dr aft a st at em en t

av erri ng th at th ere was pro ba bl e cau se th at Bo wde n ha d un la wfu ll y us ed a weap on

.

-3

-Acco rd in g to Mar ti n, Hof fm an in fo rm ed hi m th at a cal l was pl aced fro m Voyles ’s r es id en ce to Howar d W ag ne r, th e c i r c u i t cl erk , wh o co nt act ed Lieu te na nt
Co lo ne l St ev e Mei nb erg , who in tu rn c on ta ct ed Lieu te na nt Pat ric k Hawki ns

. In
Mar ti n’s acco un t, Hawkin s th en di rect ed Hof fm an th at Mar ti n sh ou ld be or de red to

se iz e th e sh ot gu n an d dr aft th e pr ob ab le cau se st a t e men t

. Bo wde n in it ia ll y na m ed
ci rcu it c le rk Howar d W ag ne r as a de fen da nt , bu t la te r su bs ti tu te d th e co un ty cl erk
, W es W ag ne r, a f

t e r di sc ov ery rev eal ed th at two cal ls were m ad e fro m Voyles ’s

res id en ce t o Wes Wagn er’s o ffi ce.

Afte r rece iv in g di rect io n fro m Hof f man , Mar ti n ret ur ne d to Bo wde n’s

res id en ce, se iz ed hi s s ho tg un , and ob ta in ed a writ te n st at em en t fro m hi m

. Bo wde n

ex pl ai ne d th at he ha d fir ed in a di rect io n away fro m Si m m on s an d Gy

ur ic a aft er th ey fai le d to id en ti fy th em se lv es , be cau se he th ou gh t th ei r act io ns were “ su sp ic io us .”
Mar ti n al so ob ta in ed writ te n st at em en ts fro m Si m m on s an d Gy

ur ic a. The y rei te rat ed
th ei r be li ef t ha t Bo wde n s ho t at th em on th e b rid ge

.

Mar ti n t he n d raft ed a pr ob ab le cau se st at em en t, wh ic h re ad :

1. I ha ve pr ob ab le cau se to be li ev e th at

. . . [Bo wde n] co m m it te d on e or

m or e cri m in al off

en se (s ):

Unl awfu l Us e o f a Weapo n

2. Th e fac ts su pp or ti ng th is be li ef ar e as fol lo ws:

Acco rd in g to th e vi ct im ’s [s ic ], th ey rep or te d th at th ey pa rk ed th ei r pi ck
up tru ck on a lo w wate r br id ge in th e area of [Bo wde n’s ad dr es s], to fis h of f th e br id ge whe n a lo cal res id en t Tho m as Bo wde n sh oo t [s ic ] at th em wit h h is sh ot gu n.

App

. 24 3. Mar ti n la te r a d mi t t e d t h a t he di d no t pe rs on al ly be li ev e th e cl ai m s of
Si m m on s an d Gy

ur ic a th at Bo wde n ha d fir ed a weap on in th ei r di rect io n. Mar ti n al so

-4

-sa id th at he di d no t th in k th e fact s es ta bl is he d th at Bo wde n ha d vi ol at ed an y Mi ss ou ri

la w.

The Je ffer so n Co un ty pr os ecu to r ob ta in ed an arre st warra nt ba se d on Mar ti n’s

pr ob ab le cau se st at e ment

. Bo wde n le arn ed th at th e warra nt ha d be en is su ed
, an d

tu rn ed hi m se lf in

. A Mi ss ou ri co ur t th en he ld a pr el im in ary he ari ng an d de te rm in ed
th at th ere was pr ob ab le ca u s e t o be li ev e th at Bo wde n vi ol at ed Mo

. Rev

. St at

. § 57 1.0 30 .1(4 ). Und er th at st at ut e, a pe rs on co m m it s th e cri m e of un la wfu l us e of weap on s if he “ kn owi ng ly

. . . [e]xh ib it s, in th e pr es en ce of one or m or e pe rs on s,

an y weap on read il y cap ab le of le th al us e i n an an gr y or th reat en in g m an ne r.”
Bo wde n was acq ui tt ed fol lo win g a jury tri al in 20 10

.

Bo wde n fil ed hi s am en de d co m pl ai nt in th is cas e ag ai ns t Mar ti n, Mei nb erg , Hawki ns , Hof

fm an , an d W es W ag ne r i n D e c em be r 20 13

. The am en de d co m pl ai nt al le ge d, as rel ev an t on ap pe al
, th at th e de fen da nt s vi ol at ed Bo wde n’s rig ht s un de r th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t by cau si ng hi m to be arre st ed wit ho ut p r o b ab le cau se

. The
de fen da nt s m ov ed fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, arg ui ng th at th ey were en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed
im m un it y an d, al te rn at iv el y , th at co ll at eral es to pp el ba rred Bo wde n fro m rel it ig at in g th e Mi ss ou ri co ur t’s de te rm in at io n th at th ere was pr ob ab le cau se to be li ev e Bo wde n vi ol at ed Mi ss ou ri l aw.

The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io ns fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. The co ur t ru le d
th at co ll at eral es to pp el di d no t app ly, be cau se Bo wde n no w so ug ht to ch al le ng e th e

“ in te gr it y ” of th e ev id en ce pr es en te d at th e pr el im in ary cau se he ari ng

. Afte r no ti ng th at Mar ti n’s affi da vi t as se rte d pr ob ab le cau se to arre st Bo wde n ev en th ou gh Mar ti n di d no t be li ev e th at pr ob ab le cau se ex is te d, th e co u r t d e n i e d su m m ary jud gm en t be cau se th ere was “ a ge nu in e is su e of m at eri al fact reg ard in g th e ex is te nc e of

pr ob ab le cau se .” The co ur t ru le d th at Mar ti n was no t en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y be cau se “ th e qu al ifi ed im m un it y in qu iry is id en ti cal to th e pr ob ab le cau se qu es ti on .”
The di st ric t co ur t di d no t sp eci fic al ly ad dr es s t h e q u a l ifi ed im m un it y of th e ot he r de fen da nt s, bu t de ni ed th ei r m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t on th at is su e as well

. All

-5

-of th e of

fic ia ls ap pe al th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of qu al ifi ed im m un it y , an d al l bu t
Mar ti n a pp eal th e co ur t’s ru li ng on co ll at eral est op pe l.

II.

Bo wde n fir st ch al le ng es ou r juri sd ic ti on ov er th is ap pe al

. W e ha ve juri sd ic ti on

ov er i nt erl oc ut or y

ap pe al s o f or de rs de nyin g qu al ifi ed im m un it y if th e ap pe al see ks

rev ie w of a pu rel y le ga l is su e. Jo hn so n , 51 5 U.S. at 31 3. W e do no t ha ve juri sd ic ti on
to rev ie w “ whi ch fact s a pa rty m ay , or m ay no t, be ab le to pr ov e at tri al .” Id

. In th is

c a s e , th e de fen da nt s co nt en d th at whe n th e fact s are vi ewed in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to Bo wde n, th ey di d no t vi ol at e Bo wde n’s cl earl y es ta bl is he d rig ht s un de r th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t. Thi s is a pu rel y le ga l is su e ov er whi ch we ha ve juri sd ic ti on

. Id

. ; Sh er br oo ke v. Ci ty of Peli ca n Rap id s , 5 1 3 F

. 3 d 80 9, 81 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ). W e

rev ie w de no vo th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on on qu al ifi ed i m m un it y , vi ewin g th e

ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to Bo wde n. Doe v. Fla he rt y , 62 3 F.3 d 57 7, 58 3 (8 th Cir . 20 10 ).

Pu bl ic of fic ia ls are im m

un e fro m su it if “ th ei r co nd uc t do es no t vi ol at e cl earl y establ is he d st at ut or y or co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s of whi ch a reas on ab le pe rs on wou ld ha ve kn own .” Har lo w v

. Fi t

zg er al d
, 45 7 U.S. 80 0, 81 8 (1 98 2)

. A pl ai nt iff se ek in g da m ag es un de r 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 m us t sh ow fir st th at th e de fen da nt ’s co nd uc t vi ol at ed a co ns ti tu ti on al rig h t a n d
, s eco nd
, th at th e rig ht was cl earl y es ta bl is he d.
Pea rs on v. Ca ll ah an , 55 5 U.S. 22 3, 23 2 (2 00 9)

. In th is cas e, we el ect to co ns id er th e
qu es ti on s i n t ha t o rd er.

Bo wde n fi r st arg ue s th at Mar ti n vi ol at ed hi s rig ht s un de r th e Fo ur th
Am en dm en t by av erri ng th at he “ ha [d ] pr ob ab le cau se to be li ev e” th at Bo wde n

co m m it te d an off

en se when Mart in di d n ot act ua ll y be li ev e th at th ere was pr ob ab le

cau se

. W he th er pr ob ab l e cau se ex is te d, ho wev er, is an ob jecti ve qu es ti on of la w. Mar ti n’s su bjec ti ve be li ef is irr el ev an t to whe th er hi s affi da vi t in cl ud ed su ffi ci en t fact s to es ta bl is h pr ob ab le cau se

. In de ed
, we ha ve up he ld th e la wfu ln es s of an arre st

-6

-ba se d on pr ob ab le cau se ev en whe re th e arre st in g of fic ers te st ifi ed th at th ey be li ev ed

pr ob ab le cau se was la ck in g. W ar re n v. Ci ty of

Li nc ol n, Neb

. , 86 4 F.2 d 14 36
, 14 39 -4 1 (8 th Ci r. 19 89 ). Mar ti n’s av erm en t th at he “ ha [d ] pr ob ab le cau se to be li ev e” th at
Bo wde n com

m it te d an offe ns e was th us no t a fal se st at em en t, beca us e th e as se rti on

se t fo rth a le ga l co nc lu si on no t a s ta te m en t o f hi st or ic al fact

.

B owd en al so arg ue s th at Mar ti n in te nt io na ll y or reck le ss ly in cl ud ed fal se
st at em en ts in
, an d om it te d fact s fro m , ot he r po rti on s of th e pr ob ab le cau se st at em en t.
Mu ch of Bo wde n’s co m pl ai nt is wit ho ut m eri t, be cau se i t f o c us es on Mar ti n’s

su bjec ti ve be li efs

. The re was no fal se ho od in Mar ti n’s rep or t th at “ [a]cco rd in g to th e vi ct im ’s

. . . Bo wde n s h o o t a t t he m ,” be cau se th is was an accu rat e rep or t of wha t Si m m on s an d Gy

ur ic a to ld hi m

. Tha t Mar ti n pe rs on al ly di d no t be li ev e th e m en was

no t rel ev an t to th e ex is te nc e of pr ob ab le cau se , so th e om is si on of Mar ti n’s su bjec ti ve be li ef d id no t v io la te th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t.

Bo wde n do es co m

pl ai n ab ou t th e om is si on of two hi st or ic al fact s: (1 ) th at Si m m on s an d Gy

ur ic a di d no t act ua ll y se e B o w d e n f ire hi s sh ot gu n an d (2 ) th at
Bo wde n to ld Mar ti n th at he fir ed th e sh ot gu n in a di rect io n away fro m Si m m on s an d
G yu r i c a. Eve n as su m in g fo r th e sa ke of an al y si s th at Mar ti n in te nt io na ll y o r reck le ss ly om it te d th es e fact s fro m hi s affi da vi t, th ere was no vi ol at io n of th e Fo ur th
Am en dm en t. If we reco ns tru ct a hypo th et ic al affi da vi t th at in cl ud es th es e ad di ti on al
fact s, se e Haw ki ns v. Gag e Co un ty
, Neb

. , 7 5 9 F

. 3 d 95 1, 95 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ), th ere

was st il l pr ob ab le cau se to be li ev e th at Bo wde n co m m it te d an of

fen se

. Tha t Si m

m on s

a n d G yu r i ca were no t lo ok in g at Bo wde n whe n he fir ed do es no t es ta bl is h th a t
Bo wde n was in no cen t. Ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce of Bo wde n sh ou ti ng at th e m en an d
le av es fal li ng fro m tre es ab ov e th em aft er th e gu ns ho t co ul d le ad a m an of reas on ab le

cau ti o n t o i nf

er th at th e gu n was fir ed at th e fis he rm en

. Bo wde n’s de ni al m erel y

crea te d a cred ib il it y

qu es ti on ; i t d id no t d es tro y pro ba bl e cau se

.

Eve n i f B o w d en ’s acco un t ha d be en in cl ud ed an d be li ev ed
, m or eo ve r, th ere

was st il l pr ob ab le cau se to be li ev e th at a n o f f e ns e was co m

m it te d. The Mi ss ou ri

-7

-st at ut e do es no t req ui re pr oo f th at a de fen da nt fir ed a weap on at an ot he r pe rs on

. It

is an of fen se kn owi ng ly t o “[e]xh ib it []” th e fir earm in th e “ pr es en ce” of an ot he r
pe rs on “ in an an gr y or th reat en in g m an ne r” when th e weap on is “ read il y cap ab le of
le th al us e.” Mo . Rev . Sta t. § 57 1.0 30 .1(4 ). W hi le Bo wde n de ni ed th at he fir ed hi s sh ot gu n at th e m en on th e br id ge , he ad m it te d th at he pu rp os efu ll y fir ed th e gu n fro m hi s pr op ert y ne arb y be cau se th e m en di d no t id en ti fy th em se lv es an d he th ou gh t th ei r be ha vi or was su sp ic io us

. App

. 24 5. The re was pr ob ab le cau se to be li ev e th at
Bo wde n kn ow i n g l y “ ex hi bi te d” th e sh ot gu n in th e pr es en ce of th e fis he rm en whe n he fir ed it
, se e St at e v. Jo hn so n , 96 4 S.W .2d 46 5, 46 8 (Mo

. Ct

. App

. 19 98 ), th at th e

ex hi bi ti on was “ an gr y or th reat en in g” ev en if th e gu n was no t ai m ed at th e fis he rm en ,

se e St at e v. Rog er

s , 97 6 S.W .2d 52 9, 53 2 (Mo

. Ct

. App

. 19 98 ), an d th at th e weap on

was “ read il y cap ab le of le th al us e” ev en if it ha d no t y et be en so us ed

. Se e St at e v. W ri gh t , 38 2 S .W .3d 90 2, 9 04 -0 5 (M o. 2 01 2)

.

Bec au se we co nc lu de th at Mart in di d n ot vi ol at e th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t, t he
al le ge d co ns pi racy by th e rem ai ni ng de fen da nt s to cau se Mar ti n’s co nd uc t al so do es

no t am ou nt to a co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n. Sl us ar ch uk v. Hof f
, 34 6 F.3 d 11 78
, 11 83 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ). W e ne ed no t ad dr es s th e se pa rat e qu es ti on of whe th er an y in fri ng ed rig ht was cl earl y es ta bl is he d, al th ou gh we no te th at th e qu al ifi ed im m un it y in qu iry
is no t id en ti cal to th e q u e s t i o n o f pr ob ab le cau se : an of fic ia l en joy s qu al ifi ed
im m un it y fo r an ob

jecti ve ly reas on ab le jud gm en t ab ou t pr ob ab le cau se th at tu rn s ou t

to be in co rrec t. And

er so n v. Cr ei

gh to n , 48 3 U.S. 63 5, 64 3- 44 (1 98 7)

. W e al so do no t

co ns id er whe th er th ere wou ld be ju ris di ct io n to rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on

on co ll at eral est op pe l, an d we e xp res s n o v ie w on th e m eri ts of t ha t i ss ue

.

* * *

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, th e or de r of th e di st ric t co ur t, R. Doc

. 85
, is

rev ers ed , and th e cas e is rem an de d fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs

.

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

-8

-