United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 19-3507

___________________________ 

Mitchell Wood

 Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Justin Wooten

 Defendant - Appellee

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Missouri - Cape Girardeau

____________ 

Submitted: September 22, 2020

 Filed: January 28, 2021 

____________ 

Before SMITH, Chief Judge, BENTON and KOBES, Circuit Judges. 

____________

BENTON, Circuit Judge.

Mitchell D. Wood sued officer Justin Wooten under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for 

unreasonable seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The district court1

granted summary judgment to Wooten. Wood v. Wooten, 2019 WL 5394506, at *6 

1

The Honorable Abbie Crites-Leoni, United States Magistrate Judge for the 

Eastern District of Missouri. 
-2-

(E.D. Mo. Oct. 22, 2019). Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court 

affirms. 

In the early morning of October 23, 2016, Scott County Deputy Sheriff Toby 

Haynes pulled Wood over for driving with a broken headlight. Operating a vehicle 

with a broken headlight at night is illegal in Missouri. §§ 307.040.1, 307.105.1, 

307.020(9), RSMo 2016. Checking the records, Haynes discovered an outstanding 

warrant for an unpaid traffic ticket. Haynes called Justin Wooten, a superior, to tell

him he had stopped Wood. 

Wooten then called the Sheriff. (At the time, Wood’s estranged wife was

rumored to be in a romantic relationship with the Sheriff.) The Sheriff told Haynes 

to treat Wood the same as everyone else. Wooten relayed this to Haynes. 

Haynes drove Wood to the station because of the outstanding warrant. He did 

not tell Wood he was under arrest. He did not handcuff him. Wood rode in the front 

seat of the vehicle with Haynes. Arriving at the station, they met Wooten. He and 

Haynes discussed the broken headlight and the outstanding warrant. Wooten then 

handcuffed Wood. He informed Wood he was under arrest for driving while 

intoxicated. 

Wood sued Wooten for unlawful arrest. The district court granted summary 

judgment to Wooten, determining he had probable cause to arrest Wood. The court 

declined to consider qualified immunity. 

This court reviews de novo the grant of summary judgment, viewing the facts 

most favorably to the nonmoving party. Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 

1031, 1042 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc). This court affirms if there is “no genuine 

dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of 

law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
-3-

The issue is whether the undisputed facts establish that Wooten had probable 

cause to arrest Wood.

First, Wood had an outstanding warrant at the time of arrest. It is undisputed 

that the warrant was valid. A valid bench warrant provides probable cause for an 

arrest. Luckes v. Cnty. of Hennepin, 415 F.3d 936, 939 (8th Cir. 2005). 

Second, Wood was driving with a broken headlight in violation of Missouri 

law. See §§ 307.040.1, 307.105.1, 307.020(9), RSMo 2016. “An officer has 

probable cause to make a warrantless arrest when the facts and circumstances are 

sufficient to lead a reasonable person to believe that the defendant has committed or 

is committing an offense.” United States v. Torres-Lona, 491 F.3d 750, 755-56 (8th 

Cir. 2007), citing Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 91 (1964). A traffic violation, no 

matter how minor, gives probable cause for a traffic stop. United States v. 

Bloomfield, 40 F.3d 910, 915 (8th Cir. 1994) (en banc). Officers may arrest 

individuals for minor infractions. See United States v. Burtton, 599 F.3d 823, 829

(8th Cir. 2010), quoting Virginia v. Moore, 553 U.S. 164, 171 (2008). 

For either reason, Wooten had probable cause to arrest Wood. 

Wood argues that Wooten lacked probable cause because he told Wood he 

was arresting him for a DWI, not the warrant or the broken headlight. 

Wood’s argument fails. First, it is undisputed that, by talking with Haynes,

Wooten knew about the warrant and broken headlight before arresting Wood. See

United States v. Edwards, 891 F.3d 708, 711-12 (8th Cir. 2018). An officer does 

not have to personally witness the events providing probable cause. Id. He or she

may rely on the “collective knowledge of all law enforcement officers involved in 

the investigation . . . if there is some degree of communication.” Id. Wooten was 

aware of two valid grounds for Wood’s arrest. 
-4-

Second, an officer’s wrongly-stated reason for an arrest does not nullify an 

otherwise lawful arrest. See Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146, 153-54 (2004), 

quoting Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 813 (1996). “[T]he validity of the 

arrest should be judged by whether the arresting officers actually had probable cause 

for the arrest, rather than by whether the officers gave the arrested person the right 

reason for the arrest.” United States v. Lester, 647 F.2d 869, 873 (8th Cir. 1981). 

An officer’s “alleged motive for the arrest cannot vitiate an otherwise lawful arrest.” 

Peterson v. Kopp, 754 F.3d 594, 599 (8th Cir. 2014), citing Whren, 517 U.S. at 813. 

Regardless of the officer’s stated reasons, an outstanding warrant can justify an 

arrest. See Rodgers v. Knight, 781 F.3d 932, 939 (8th Cir. 2015) (holding that where 

officers seized the defendant for a firearms violation despite a valid conceal-andcarry, the defendant’s outstanding warrant for failure-to-appear-in-court justified the 

seizure). 

As a result, although Wooten told Wood he was under arrest for a DWI, he 

had probable cause based on the outstanding warrant or the broken headlight.

Wood also alleges that after the fact, Wooten fabricated evidence about the

arrest (and then invoked his Fifth Amendment right about it). This later conduct 

does not negate Wooten’s probable cause at the time of the arrest. See Bowden v. 

Meinberg, 807 F.3d 877, 881-82 (8th Cir. 2015). Excluding the allegedly fabricated 

evidence, Wooten had probable cause based on the outstanding warrant or the

broken headlight. See id.

The district court correctly granted summary judgment to Wooten. 

* * * * * * *

The judgment is affirmed. 

____________________________