United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 96-2798

___________ Alice Frisby; Laquestia Frisby, * * Appellees, * *
v. * * Jim Crow, Individually and in his * official capacity as the Sheriff of Ashley * Appeal from the United States County, Arkansas; Greg Sanson, * District Court for the Individually and in his Official Capacity * Western District of Arkansas. as a Deputy Sheriff of Ashley County, * Arkansas, and; Randy Padgett, * [UNPUBLISHED] Individually and in his Official Capacity * as a Deputy Sheriff of Ashley County, * Arkansas, * * Appellants. *

___________ Submitted: July 21, 1997 Filed: July 29, 1997

___________ Before McMILLIAN, BEAM, an d MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.The Hon orable Harry F. Barnes, United States District Judge for the Wester n 1 District of Arkansas.
-2- Defendants appealthe district court's denial of qualified immunity in plaintiffs' 1 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We affirm.

Alice Frisby and her daughter, Laquestia Frisby, filed this action against Ji m Crow, the Sherif

f of Ashley County, Arkansas, and Deputy Sheriffs Greg Sanson and Randy Padget t, in their official and individual capacities. During a search of th e Frisbys' residences, defendants Sanson and Padgett seize d a small amount of marijuana

an d drug paraphernalia from Laquestia's residence, prescription drugs belonging t o another family member from Alice's residence, and cash from both residences. Both women were arrested and held fo r five hours; Alice was charged with intent to deliver andunlawful possession of a narcotic drug, but the charges were later dropped. The Fr isbys have not challenged the constitutionality of the searches or their arrests. The Frisby s alleged, however, that defendants tampered with the money they seized b y contaminating it with drug residue in an effort to confiscate their property and assure their con viction on drug charges. The money has not been returned. The Frisby s cl aimed that defendants' conduct violated the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments b y depriving them of their liberty, privacy, and property interests without due process.

Defendan ts moved for summary judgment, arguing they had not violated th e Frisby s' constitutional rights, because the money was seized after the officer s discov ered drugs pursuant to valid search warrants, and the Frisbys had not bee n injure d by the evidence tampering, as the charges against them were dropped

. Defendants also argued that they were entitled to qualified immunit y. The district court denied summary judgment.

In an appeal from the denial of a motion for summary judgment based o n qualified immunity, we have jur isdiction to review, de novo, the abstract issues of law-3-

relating to the existence of qualified immunity. See Sisneros v. Nix , 95 F.3d 749, 753 (8th Cir. 1996) (denial o f qualified immunity reviewed de novo); Eagle v. Morgan , 88 F.3d 620, 624 (8th Cir. 1996) (whether facts constitute constitutional violation i s abs tract issue of law over which this court has jurisdiction). Looking at the conduc t that the district court deemed adequately supported for purpos es of summary judgment,

see Allison v. Department of Corrections , 94 F.3d 494, 496 (8th Cir. 1996), we must determine whether plaintiffs asserted a violation of a federal right, whether that right was clearly established, and whether a reasonable official in d efendants' position would have known that his conduct violated that right, see Heidemann v. Rother , 84 F.3 d 1021, 1028 (8th Cir. 1996).

If, a s the Frisbys alleged, the evidence tampering resulted in the deprivation of the Frisbys' property, the officers' conduct could amount to a violation of the Frisbys' clearly established due process rights. Cf. Mahers v. Halford , 76 F.3d 951, 954 (8th Cir. 1996) (inmates entitled to due process for deprivation of money received fro m outside sou rces). Defendants did not show otherwise. Although it appears tha t adequat e state post-deprivation remedies would satisfy due process, see Parratt v

. Taylor , 451 U.S. 527, 541-44 (1981) (post-deprivation remedies adequate when loss is result of random, unauthorized act by state employee); Hudson v. Palmer , 468 U.S. 517, 53 3 (1984) ( Parratt applies to intentional deprivations), defendants have no t demonstrated

the existence of such a remedy. Thus, the denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity was appropriate. We may not address in this interlocutory appeal appella nts' arguments that Crow was not liable in his individual or official capacity, or that the Fr isbys' pendent state tort claims should fail. See Veneklase v. City of Fargo , 78 F.3d 1264, 1270 (8th Cir. ) (denial of summary judgment on claim against city for fai lure to train not appealable on officers' appeal of denial of qualified immunity), cert. denied , 117 S. Ct. 178 (1996); Smith v. Arkansas Dep't of Correction , 103 F.3d 637, 649-50 (8th Ci r. 1996) (in appeal from denial of qualified im munity, no jurisdiction to address issues not immediately-4-

appealable unless inextricably intertwined with qualified immunity determination).

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.