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

For the Eig hth Circu it

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

No. 1 6- 34 51

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

S.M. et al.

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

ff s - Ap pe ll ees

v.

Lin co ln Co un ty, Mi ss ou ri

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

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

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: Ju ne 7, 2 01 7

Fil ed : Oct ob er 2 7, 2 01 7

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re LOKEN, MURPHY, and MELLOY, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

LOKEN, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

Pl ai nt iff s S.M., L.M., K.W

., an d K.S. are fo rm er pa rti ci pa nt s in th e Adu lt Dru g

Co ur t of Mi s s o u r i ’s 45 th Ju di ci al Ci rcu it (“ Dru g Co ur t” ), an al te rn at iv e co ur t

es ta bl is he d to di sp os e of dr ug c a s es pu rs ua nt to Mo

. Rev

. St at

. §§ 47 8.0 01 -.00 6.

Pl ai nt iff s bro ug ht th is 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 da m ag e act io n aga in st Lin co ln Co un ty an d

ot he r de fen da nt s, as se rti ng th at Sco tt Edwar ds

, th en a li eu te na nt in th e Lin co lnC o u n t y Sh eri ff’s Dep art m en t, vi ol at ed th ei r su bs ta nt iv e du e pr oc es s rig ht s by

co m m it ti ng rep eat e d a ct s of se xu al ab us e whi le se rv in g in hi s po si ti on as th e

“ tra ck er” ( m on it or ) of

Drug Co ur t p art ic ip an ts

.

In a pr io r ap pe al

, we rev ers ed th e de ni al of qu al ifi ed im m un it y to in d i v i d u al

de fen da nt Mi ch ael Krig ba um , wh o s e r v e d a s Sh eri ff of Lin co ln Co un ty at th e ti m e

of Edwar ds ’s cri m in al m is co nd uc t. S.M. v. Krig ba um

, 80 8 F.3 d 33 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ). 1

O n r e man d, th e cl ai m s ag ai ns t Lin co ln Co un ty pr oc eed ed to a th ree- da y tri al

. Th e

jury fo un d th at th e Lin co ln Co un ty Sh eri ff, a Co un ty po li cy m ak er, was de li be rat el y

in di ffer en t to pl ai nt iff

s’ co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s in fai li ng to su pe rv is e tra ck er Edwar ds

.

The jury award ed co m

pe ns at or y da m ag es of $7 50 ,00 0 to S.M. an d $5 00 ,00 0 each to

K.W ., K.S., an d L.M. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed Lin co ln Co un ty’ s ren ewed m ot io n 2

fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w or in th e al te rn at iv e fo r a ne w tri al

. Lin co ln Co un ty

ap pe al s th e de ni al of it s po st -v erd ic t m ot io n. App lying th e de fere nt ia l st an da rd s fo r 3

rev ie w of a jury ve rd ic t an d t he de ni al of a m ot io n fo r ne w tri al , we affi rm

.

I.

It is un di sp ut ed th at Edwar ds “ de pr iv ed p l ai nt iff s of a cl earl y es ta bl is he d

co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht to su bs ta nt iv e du e pr oc es s whe n he c o mm i t te d an eg reg io us

,

Edwar ds pl ead ed gu il ty t o e xp lo it in g h is tra ck er p os it io n t o g ai n t he tru st of 1

Dru g Co ur t pa rti ci pa nt s S.M., L.M., K.W

., an d K.S. an d th en co erci ng th ei r

su bm is si on to sex ua l as sa ul ts . Edward s i s s erv in g a ten -y ear p ris on sen te nc e.

The Ho n or ab le Pat ric ia L. Co he n, Uni te d St at es Mag is tra te Ju dg e fo r th e 2

East ern Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

Lin co ln Co un ty al so ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of it s pr et ria l m ot io ns 3

fo r su m m ary ju d g men t

. Fo ll owi ng tri al on th e m eri ts

, we do no t co ns id er

in te rlo cu to ry ru li ng s co nc ern in g su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce. See N.Y. Mar in e &

Gen eral Ins . Co. v . Con t’l Ce m en t Co ., 76 1 F .3d 83 0, 8 38 (8t h C ir. 2 01 4)

.

-2

-no nc on se ns ua l en tr y i nt o th e bo dy whi ch was an ex erci se of po wer wit ho ut an y

le gi ti m at e go ve rn m en ta l ob jecti ve .” Krig ba um

, 80 8 F.3 d at 34 0 (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

.

Edwar ds ’s tra ck er du ti es in cl ud ed cu rfew ch eck s at pa rti ci pa nt s’ h om es at 10 p.m .;

s e a r c h e s of th ei r ho m es

, refr ig erat or s, an d tra sh fo r ev id en ce of dr ug us e or ot h e r

Dru g Co ur t pr og ram no nc om pl ia nc e; co nd uc ti ng on -s it e ur in e an al y si s te st s;

rep or ti ng in fo rm at io n abo ut pa rti ci pa nt s’ co m pl ia nc e at Dru g Co ur t te am m eet in gs ;

an d ta ki ng pa rti ci pa nt s who vi ol at ed pr og ram req ui rem en ts in to cu st od y

. The Dru g

Co ur t ci rcu it j udge iss ue d sa nc ti on s an d pu ni sh m en ts

, in cl ud in g jail ti m e, fo r pr og ram

no nc om pl ia nc e.

So m e of Edwar ds ’s se xu al as sa ul ts oc cu rred whi le pl ai nt iff s were in carc erat ed

as a Dru g Co ur t sa nc ti on in a Sh eri ff’s Dep art m en t jail

. Ass au lt s al so oc cu rred whe n

Edwar ds vi si te d th e pl ai nt iff s’ ho m es in t h e ev en in gs fo r cu rfew ch eck s, or whi le

co nd u c t i n g s tri p se arch es

, or whi le tra ns po rti ng pa rti ci pa nt s in hi s pa tro l car. On

se ve ral oc cas io ns

, Edwar ds req ui red pl ai nt iff s to rem ov e th ei r br as an d ex po se th ei r

br eas ts to “ sh ak e ou t” ev id en ce of dr ug us e. On an ot he r oc cas io n, Edwar ds fo nd le d

an d ab us ed a pa rti ci pa nt whi l e f e ig ni ng to lo ok fo r ev id en ce of dr ug us e. Edwar ds

as sa ul te d S.M. aft er m ov in g he r to a m ot el ro om

. Pl ai nt iff s di d no t rep or t th e as sa ul ts

be cau se th ey be li ev ed Edwar ds he ld po wer ov er th em at th e Dru g Co ur t. He wou ld

co ve r up a vi ct im ’s Dru g Co ur t vi ol at io ns

, so sh e fel t “ he ha d so m et hi ng so li d on m e

th at he co u l d u s e a g a i n st m e to act iv el y do wha te ve r it was he was go in g to do .”

Afte r le arn in g th at L. M

. ha d rel ap se d, Edwar ds to ld he r sh e co ul d “ earn it ba ck ”

(av oi d s an ct io n) th ro ug h s ex ua l fa vo rs

.

At is su e is Lin co ln Co un ty’ s li ab il it y fo r th es e eg reg io us vi ol at io ns

. The jury

fo un d th a t Li n c o l n Co un ty was de li be rat el y in di ffer en t to an ob vi ou s ris k th at th e

Co un ty’ s fail ur e to su pe rv is e Edwar ds wou ld res ul t in th es e vi ol at io ns of pl ai nt iff s’

rig ht s. Lin co ln Co un ty arg ue s th at pl ai nt iff s pr es en te d le ga ll y in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce

to su pp or t th is fin di ng

, whi ch is a pr ereq ui si te to im po si ng § 19 83 m

un ic ip al li ab il it y

.

-3

-W e m

us t up ho ld t h e ve rd ic t un le ss it ha s no le ga ll y su ffi ci en t ev id en ti ary ba si s.

Ja ck so n v . Cit y

of S t. Lo ui s, 2 20 F.3d 89 4, 8 96 (8t h C ir. 2 00 0)

.

A. A m un ic ip al it y (o r Co un ty) “ m ay no t be fo un d li ab le un le ss act io n pu rs ua nt

to of fic ia l m un ic ip al po li cy of so m e na tu re c a us ed a co ns ti tu ti on al to rt.” Szab la v.

Ci ty of B r o ok lyn Park

, MN., 48 6 F.3 d 38 5, 38 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (en ba nc ), qu ot in g

Mo ne ll v. Dep ’t of So ci al Serv s., 43 6 U.S. 65 8, 69 1 (1 97 8)

. It “ can no t be he ld li ab le

on a re sp on de at su

pe ri or th eo ry

, th at is

, so le ly be cau se it em pl oys a to rtf

eas or ” su ch

a s Ed w ard s. Id

. W he re m un ic ip al act io n “ it

se lf vi ol at es fed eral la w, or di re c t s a n

em pl oyee to do so

, res ol vi ng [] is su es of fau lt an d cau sa ti on is st rai gh tfo rward .” Bd

.

of Ct y

. Co m

m ’rs v. Bro wn, 52 0 U.S. 39 7, 40 4- 05 (1 99 7)

. Bu t whe re th e cl ai m is th at

m un ic ip al act io n la wfu l on it s face cau se d an em pl oyee to in fli ct co ns ti tu ti on al in jury,

“ rig or ou s st an da rd s of cu lp ab il it y an d cau sa ti o n mu s t be ap pl ie d to en su re th at th e

m un ic ip al it y is no t he ld li ab le so le ly fo r th e act io ns of it s em pl oyee.” Id

. at 40 5. In

Ci ty of Can to n v. Harri s, 48 9 U.S. 37 8, 38 8 (1 98 9)

, th e Co ur t h e l d th at m un ic ip al

li ab il it y fo r a cl ai m su c h a s f ai lu re to su pe rv is e em

pl oyee Edwar ds

-- pl ai nt iff s’

th eo ry in th is cas e -- req ui res pr oo f th at th e fai lu re “ am ou nt s to de li be rat e in di ffer en ce

to th e rig ht s of pe rs on s wit h who m th e [em pl oyee] co m e[s ] in to co nt act .” Mu ni ci pa l

in act io n m

us t be th e “ m ov in g fo rce [b eh in d] th e co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n.” Id

. at 38 9

(al te rat io n i n o rig in al ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d) ; s ee Sz ab la , 48 6 F .3d at 3 90 -9 1.

Deli be rat e in di ffer en c e i n th is co nt ex t “ is a st rin ge nt st an da rd of fau lt

,

req ui rin g pr oo f th at a m

un ic ip al act or di sr eg ard ed a kn own or ob vi ou s co ns eq ue nc e

of hi s act io n.” Bro wn, 52 0 U.S. at 41 0. The is su e is whe th er, “ in li gh t of th e du ti es

as si gn ed to sp eci fic of

fic ers or em

pl oyees th e ne ed fo r m or e or di ffer en t tra in in g [o r

su pe rv is io n] is so ob vi ou s, and th e in ad eq ua cy so li ke ly to re su lt in th e v io la ti on of

co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s, th at th e po li cy m ak ers of th e ci ty can reas on ab ly be sa id to ha ve

be en de li be rat el y in di ffer en t to th e ne ed .” Can to n, 48 9 U.S. at 39 0, qu ot ed in Lieb e

v. Nor to n, 15 7 F.3 d 57 4, 57 9 (8 th Ci r. 19 98 ); cf. Cas h v. Ct y

. of Erie

, 65 4 F.3 d 32 4,

33 7 (2 d C ir. 20 11 ) (fai lu re-t o- su pe rv is e cl ai m ), cert

. de ni ed

, 56 5 U.S. 1 25 9 (2 01 2)

.

-4

-“ A p at te rn of si m il ar co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io ns by u n t rai ne d em pl oyees is or di na ril y

ne ces sa ry to de m on st rat e de li be rat e in di ffer en ce fo r pu rp os es of fai lu r e t o t rai n.”

Co nn ic k v. Tho m

ps on

, 56 3 U.S. 51

, 62 (2 01 1) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. “ In res ol vi ng th e

is su e of a ci ty’ s l i a b i l it y

, th e fo cu s m us t be on ad eq ua cy of th e [s up erv is io n] in

rel at io n to th e ta sk s th e pa rti cu la r of fic ers m us t pe rfo rm .” Can to n, 48 9 U.S. at 39 0.

“ W he n th e is su e is qu al ifi ed im m un it y fro m in di vi du al li ab il it y fo r fai lu r e t o

tra in or su pe rv is e

, d el ib erat e in di ffer en ce is a su bjec ti ve st an da rd ” th at req ui res

pe rs on al kn owl ed ge of th e co ns ti tu ti on al ris k po se d by i n a de qu at e su pe rv is io n, th e

ba si s fo r ou r co nc lu si on th at Sh eri ff Krig ba um was en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y in

Krig ba um

, 80 8 F.3 d at 34 1. Bu t an ob jecti ve st an da rd of de l i b e r a t e in di ffer en ce

ap pl ie s to pl ai nt iff

s’ fai lu re-t o- su pe rv is e cl ai m s ag ai ns t t h e Co un ty. Id

. at n.3 ; se e

Farm er v . Bren na n, 5 11 U.S. 82 5, 8 40 -4 2 (1 99 4) ; Ca nt on , 48 9 U.S. at 39 0.

B. A un iq ue as pe ct in ap pl y in g th es e es ta bl is he d m un ic ip al -li ab il it y pr in ci pl es

to th is cas e is th e cen tra l ro le pl ay ed by th e m ul ti -ag en cy Dru g Co ur t. Tho ug h

ge ne ral ly au th or iz ed by st at e st a t u t e

, t h e Dru g Co ur t was es ta bl is he d by a le ng th y

Aug us t 20 06 Mem or an du m of Und ers t a n di ng (“ MOU”) be twee n th e Fo rty-Fift h

Ci rcu it Co ur t, “ th e l o c al Defen se Bar, The Sh eri ffs of Lin co ln an d Pi ke Co un ti es

,

Dep art m en t of Co rrec ti on s Dis tri ct Offi ce of Pro ba ti on an d Paro le

, an d de si gn at ed

su bs ta nc e ab us e tre at m en t pr ov id ers .” Sh eri ff Krig ba um ’s pr ed eces so r si gn ed th e

MOU as Lin co ln Co un ty Sh eri ff, th ereb y un de rta ki ng to be a “ te am m em be r” an d “ to

en ha nc e in te rag en cy co m m un ic at io n to p r o v i de an effe ct iv e tre at m en t te am fo r th e

Dru g Co ur t pa rti ci pa nt s” th ro ug h th is “ li nk ag e of se rv ic es .” In a se ct io n of th e MOU

en ti tl ed “ SHE RIFFS ,” th e Lin co ln Co un ty Sh eri ff a g r e e d to a li st of ei gh t “ co re

co m pe te nc ie s,” i nc lu di ng :

1. Part ic ip at es fu ll y as a Dru g Co ur t te am m em be r, co m m it ti ng hi m or

he r s e l f to th e pr og ram m is si on an d go al s, an d wor ks as fu ll pa rtn er to

in su re t he ir s uc ces s.

-5

-7. Pro vi de s a m on it or in g fu nc ti on to th e te am (al on g wi th su pe rv is io n

an d tre at m en t): i.e. go in g on joi nt ho m e vi si ts

, rep or ti ng on a

pa rti ci pa nt ’s act iv it ie s in th e co m m un it y

, an d su pe rv is in g pa rti ci pa ti on

in co m m un it y ser vi ce.

The Dru g Co ur t Po li ci es an d Pro ced ur es Man ua l st at es th at th e Lin co ln Co un ty

Sh eri ff’s Dep art m en t p ro vi de s t he m on it or in g t rack er. The Man ua l ex pl ai ns :

The ro le of th e tra c k er is to co nd uc t ho m e vi si ts an d ot he r pa rti ci pa nt

co nt act

. . . . The du ti es of tra ck er wil l be

, bu t no t l i mi t e d to

, co nd uc t

ho m e vi si ts , i ns pe ct pa rti ci pa nt s’ ho m es for in di cat io ns of d ru g an d/ or

al co ho l us e, cu rfew co m

pl ia nc e, co nd uc t br eat ha lyzer te st s, on -s it e UA

[u rin e an al y si s] te st s an d em pl oym en t ve r i f

i c at io n. If th e tra ck er fin ds

th at th e pa rti ci pa nt ha s vi ol at ed d r u g co ur t po li cy

, he wil l co nt act th e

jud ge t o d e t erm in e if th e pa rti ci pa nt sh ou ld be ta ke n in to cu st od y as a

sa nc ti on

.

In Krig ba um

, we no te d th at “[t ]h e Dru g Co ur t’s m ul ti -ag en cy m em

be rs hi p

res ul te d in si gn ifi can t co nf us io n an d ig no ran ce reg ard in g who was su pe rv is in g

Edwar ds on a da y -to -d ay ba si s whe n he se rv ed as tra ck er.” 8 0 8 F

. 3 d a t 34 1. The

ev id en ce at tri al bo re th is ou t. Two Ci rcu it Co ur t jud ge s as si gn ed to th e Dru g Co ur t,

th e Dru g Co ur t Adm in is tra to r, an d Dru g Co ur t te a m memb e r s fro m th e Lin co ln

Co un ty Ci rcu it Cl erk

, th e Dru g Co ur t’s co un se li ng se rv ic e, an d Pro ba ti on an d Paro le

te st ifi ed th at th ey di d no t su pe rv is e Edwar ds

, be li ev in g th e Sh eri ff’s Dep art m en t was

hi s su pe rv is o r. Ju dg e Bu rk em pe r te st ifi ed : “ If we ha d is su es wit h an y of th e te am

m em be rs

, we wou ld try to ta lk to th em fir st

. And if th at was n’t su cces sf ul

, we wen t

to

. . . hi s or he r bo ss

. . . . I’ve ne ve r se en th e Dru g Co ur t te am as h a v i ng an y

su pe rv is or y au th or it y ov er

. . . an y te am m em be rs .” Edwar ds te st ifi ed by de po si ti on

th at he wor ke d al on e an d co ns id ered th e Dru g Co ur t Adm in is tra to r to be hi s

su pe rv is or

.

-6

-W he n Krig ba um was el ect ed Lin co ln Co un ty Sh eri ff in 20 08

, th e Dru g Co ur t

was op erat in g wit h Edwar ds se rv in g as tra ck er. The tra ck er po si ti on was “ se co nd ary”

to Edwar ds ’s reg ul ar Sh eri ff’s Dep a r t men t d u ti es ; hi s tra ck er pa y cam e fro m a

se pa rat e Co un ty fu nd

. Ci rcu it Ju dg e Bu rk em pe r co nt act ed Krig ba um reg ard in g th e

Dru g Co ur t an d ad vi se d hi m of th e MOU. Krig ba um sa id he wou ld su pp or t th e Dru g

Co ur t by co nt in ui ng to pr ov id e a t r a c k e r a n d hi s ve hi cl e an d to pa y hi s sa la ry

. Krig ba um ret ai ne d Edwar ds in th e tra ck er po si ti on bu t th erea fte r pa id no at te nt io n to

th e Dru g Co ur t. He di d no t at te nd te am m eet in gs wit h Edwar ds

. He di d no t m on it or

or in qu ire ab ou t Edward s’s perf or m an ce as tra ck er. Edwar ds su bm it te d ti m e sh eet s

f o r h o u rs sp en t wor ki ng as tra ck er; Krig ba um ap pr ov ed th e ti m e sh eet s wit ho ut

at te m pt in g to ve rif

y th e in fo rm at io n, whic h Edward s u nd er-r ep or te d. Th e Sh eri ff’s

Dep art m en t po li cy req ui rin g of f i c ers to cal l in th ei r lo cat io n an d m il eag e whe n

tr a n s p o r t i n g a juv en il e or m em be r of th e op po si te se x was no t ap pl ie d to Edwar ds

whe n se rv in g as tra ck er. Krig ba um di sc us se d th e Dru g C o u r t w i th Co un ty

Co m m is si on ers on ly “ whe n it cam e to m on ey .” He fir st sa w t h e Dru g Co ur t MOU

an d P ol ic ie s an d P ro ced ur es Man ua l at hi s d ep os it io n i n t hi s l aws ui t.

C. Lin co ln Co un ty arg ue s th e ev id en ce was i n s u f f i c i e n t to sh ow th at th e

Co un ty is li ab le fo r fai li ng to su pe rv is e Edwar d s w h i l e he wor ke d as Dru g Co ur t

tra ck er be cau se Sh eri ff Krig ba um th ou gh t th e Dru g Co ur t su pe rv is ed Edwar ds whe n

se rv in g as tra ck er, Krig ba um la ck ed act ua l kn owl ed ge of Edwar ds ’s m is co nd uc t, an d

no te st im on y c o n n e c t ed th e Sh eri ff’s Dep art m en t to kn owl ed ge of Edwar ds ’s

m is de ed s. Bu t th is arg um en t fai ls t o t a k e in to acco un t th e fai lu re-t o- su pe rv is e

in st ru ct io ns su bm it te d to th e jury wi th ou t ob je ct io n

. Fo r each pl ai nt iff

, th e jury was

in st ru ct ed th at it s v erd ic t wi ll be ag ai ns t Li nc ol n C ou nt y if i t fi nd s:

Fir st : The Lin co ln Co un ty Sh eri ff, as po li cy m ak er fo r Defen da nt

Lin co ln Co un ty, was res po ns ib le fo r su pe rv is in g Sco tt Edwar ds as Dru g

Co ur t Trac ke r; a nd

-7

-Se co nd : Defen da nt Lin co ln Co un ty’ s su pe rv is io n of Sco tt

Edwar ds as Dru g C ou rt Tra ck er was in ad eq ua te ; an d

Th ir d : The ne ed fo r su pe rv is io n by Defen da nt Lin co ln Co un ty

was so ob vi ou s, an d th e in ad eq ua cy so li ke ly to res ul t in th e vi ol at io n of

[eac h Pl ai nt iff ’s ] co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s, th at th e po li cy m ak er fo r

Defen da nt Lin co ln Co un ty can rea s o n a b l y be sa id to ha ve be en

“ de li be rat el y

in di ffer en t” to th e n eed for su ch su pe rv is io n; an d

Fou rt h : The fai lu re of D e f en da nt Lin co ln Co un ty to su pe rv is e

Sco tt Edwar ds as Dru g Co ur t Track er was th e cau se of th e i n ju r ie s to

[eac h P la in ti ff].

Two as pe ct s of th is in st ru ct io n a re o f cri ti cal im po rta nc e to th is ap pe al

. In th e fi rs t

in st ru ct i o n

, t h e pe rs on id en ti fie d as Lin co ln Co un ty po li cy m ak er was no t Sh eri ff

Mi ch a e l Krig ba um ; it was “ The Lin co ln Co un ty Sh eri ff.” Thu s, in de te rm in in g

su pe rv is or y res po ns ib il it ie s, the j ur y w as ins tr

uc te d th at it co ul d co ns id er, as pl ai nt iff s

arg ue d, th at “ th e Sh eri ff” si gn ed an MOU ag reei ng to be a fu ll y pa rti ci p a ti ng Dru g

Co ur t te am m em

be r, whe th er or no t Krig ba um ev er un de rs to od th e Sh eri ff’s Dru g

Co ur t re sp on si bi li ti es or e ve n re ad th e MOU. The Th ir d in st ru ct io n, wh ic h e xa ct ly

tra ck ed th e ab ov e-q uo te d li ab il it y st an da rd fro m Can to n as qu ot ed by th is co ur t in

Lieb e, pe rm it te d th e jury to fin d th at th e ne ed f o r s u p erv is io n was “ so ob vi ou s”

be cau se of da ng er si gn al s th at were ap pa ren t to ot he r Dru g Co ur t te am m em be rs bu t

were ne ve r co nv ey ed to Sh eri ff Krig ba um

, who ig no red Dru g C o u r t act iv it ie s

al to ge th er. In a “ no su pe rv is io n” cas e in vo lv in g a m un ic ip al -li ab il it y

cla im ag ai ns t

on e ag en cy pa rti ci pa nt

, a no ve l an d po te nt ia ll y cri ti cal le ga l iss ue is whe th er a ne ed

fo r su pe rv is io n th at be cam e ob vi ou s to ot he r ag en ci es ’ of fic ia ls can es ta bl is h th e

de li be rat e in di ffer en ce of a Lin co ln Co un ty Sh eri ff wh o was un aware of th e da ng er

si gn al s. Howev er, as Lin co ln C o u n t y fai le d to ob ject to th e di st ric t co ur t’s ve rd ic t

di rect or

, th e on ly is su e be fo re us is whe th er th e tri al ev id en ce pe rm it te d a reas on ab le

jury to fi nd for th e p la in ti ffs on th e el em en ts of t he cla im as i ns tru ct ed

.

-8

-D. Turn in g t o th e sp eci fic su ffi ci en cy is su es , th e Co un ty’ s p rin ci pa l d efen se

at tri al was th at Sh eri ff K r i g b a u m w a s no t res po ns ib le fo r su pe rv is in g Edwar ds as

Dru g Co ur t tra ck er

. B ut th e tri al ev id en ce was cl earl y su ffi ci en t to pe rm it a

reas on ab le jury to fin d, as th ey were in st ru ct ed

, th at th e Li nc ol n Co un ty Sh er if f

, as a

Lin co ln Co un ty po li cy m ak er, w as res po ns ib le fo r su pe rv is in g Sco tt Edwar ds as Dru g

Co ur t Track er. The te rm s of th e MOU, st an di ng al on e, su pp or t th is fin di ng

. And th e

te st im on y of Ju dg e Bu rk em pe r th at th e Dru g Co ur t co ns id ered th e ag en cy pr ov id in g

a p art ic ul ar team m em

be r to be th at pe rs on ’s “ su pe rv is or ” ga ve th e jury a com m on

se ns e ba si s fo r res ol vi ng a n i s s u e th at

, in hi nd si gh t, was le ft un res ol ve d whe n th e

Dru g C ou rt wa s es ta bl is he d, wi th di sa st ro us res ul ts

.

One of th e two cri ti cal fact is su es at tri al was whe th er th e ne ed to su pe rv i se

Edwar ds as tra ck er was

, in th e wor ds of th e jury in st ru ct io n, “ so ob vi ou s

. . . th at th e

po li cy m ak er fo r Defen da nt Lin co ln Co un ty can reas on ab ly be sa id to ha ve b een

‘del ib erat el y in di ffer en t’ to th e ne ed fo r su ch su pe rv is io n.” Tho ug h th is in st ru ct io n

fo ll owe d th e la ng ua ge of th e de li be rat e in di ffer en ce te st art ic ul at ed in Can to n, it

arg ua bl y di d no t gi ve th e jury an accu rat e se ns e of ho w rig or ou sl y th e st an da rd m us t

be ap pl ie d “ to en su re th at th e m un ic ip al it y is no t he ld li ab le so le ly fo r th e act io ns of

it s em pl oyee.” Bro wn, 52 0 U.S. at 40 5. Bu t as th ere was no ob jecti on to th e

in st ru ct io n, t ha t i ss ue is no t b efo re u s an d we d o n ot co ns id er i t.

At t ria l, p la in ti ffs co nt en de d t ha t sp eci fic ev id en ce dem on st rat ed a pa tt ern of

act iv it y by tra ck er Edwar ds th at m ad e ob vi ou s th e in ad eq ua cy of hi s su pe rv is io n “ in

rel at io n to th e ta sk s th e pa rti cu la r of fic er[] m us t pe rfo rm .” Can to n, 48 9 U.S. at 39 0.

So m e of th e ev id en c e r e l a te d to m is co nd uc t by Edwar ds th at sh ou ld ha ve be en

ob vi ou s to Sh eri ff Krig ba um an d th e Sh eri ff’s Dep art m en t jail st aff. Edwar ds vi si te d

K.W

., S.M., an d L.M. whi le in carc erat ed an d to ok th em ou t of jail fo r sm ok e br eak s

or to a McDo na ld ’s. The se were cl ear vi ol at io ns of jail po li ci es

, an d Edwar ds an d

pl ai nt iff s walk ed pa st jail st aff as th ey ex it ed th e pr is on

. S.M. te st ifi ed th at Edwar ds

us ed th es e o ccas io ns to in it ia te sex ua l co nt act “ in th e de te ct iv e si de [o f th e fac il it y ]

-9

-whe re it wou ld be da rk

. . . . [T]hat ’s whe re he wou ld gr op e or to uc h or do wha te ve r

it was he wan te d to do wit h us .” Mo re ge ne ral ly, Kri gb au m te st ifi ed th at th ere is a

ris k of m is co nd uc t whe n la w en fo rcem en t of fic ers are al o n e w i t h fem al es

, an d

Edwar ds to ld Krig ba um th at he ha d th e au th or it y to rep or t fact s as tra ck er th at co ul d

m ak e a p art ic ip an t g o t o jai l.

Mu ch of pl ai nt iff

s’ “ so ob vi ou s” ev id en ce co nc ern ed Edwar ds ’s co nd uc t as

tra ck er th at was kn own to Dru g Co ur t te am memb e r s bu t no t to Sh eri ff Krig ba um

be cau se he ig no red th e Sh eri ff’s ro le as de fin ed in th e Dru g Co ur t MOU. Fo r

ex am pl e, de sp it e th e MOU’s ex pl ic it refe ren ce to “ joi nt ” vi si ts

, Edwar ds wor ke d

al on e “ al m os t ex cl us iv el y ” whe n pe rfo rm in g tra ck er du ti es

, in cl ud in g ni gh t vi si ts to

fem al e pa rti ci pa nt s’ h om es , a nd Ju dg e Bu rk em pe r te st ifi ed he ’d “ ne ve r kn own two

pe op le to go ou t.” The re was al so ev id en ce th at Ed w a r d s mad e de ris iv e se xu al

co m m en ts at Dru g Co ur t te am m eet in gs ab ou t fem al es un de r hi s su pe rv is io n, un de rrep or te d ho ur s an d tri ps in hi s pa tro l car to th e pl a i n t i f f s ’ ho m es

, an d was wid el y

pe rcei ve d a s d ev ot in g a tt en ti on to y ou ng er wo m en . A m al e Dru g C ou rt p art ic ip an t

te st ifi ed th at it was co m m on kn owl ed ge th at Edwar ds sp en t a di sp ro po rti on at e

am ou nt of ti m e su pe rv is in g fem al e pa rti ci pa nt s who were “ at tra ct iv e, y ou ng

, an d ne w

to th e Dru g C ou rt p ro gr am an d k in d o f na iv e.”

Viewe d in to to

, we co nc lu de th at th is ev id en ce, whi le no t ov erwh el m in g, was

su ffi ci en t to pe rm it a reas on ab le jury to fin d th at (i) it was so ob vi ou s to Dru g Co ur t

te am m em

be rs th at fai li ng to pr ov id e an y su pe rv is io n of Edwar ds as D ru g Co ur t

tr ac ke r w oul d re sul t in th e vi ol at io n of se xu al ly vu ln erab le pa rti ci pa nt s’ co ns tituti ona l

rig ht s as to co ns ti tu te de li be rat e in di ffer en ce to th e ne ed fo r su pe rv is io n, an d (ii ) th is

de li be rat e in di ffer en ce was at tri bu ta bl e to th e Sh eri ff of Lin co ln Co un ty as th e Dru g

Co ur t t eam

m em be r res po ns ib le for su pe rv is in g t rack er Ed ward s.

Lin co ln Co un ty fu rth er arg ue s th e ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t to pr ov e th e ot he r

es se nt ia l el em en t of m

un ic ip al li ab il it y -- th at a la ck of su pe rv is io n was th e “ m ov in g

-1 0-fo rce” be hi nd Edwar ds ’s co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io ns

. See Parr is h v. Bal l, 59 4 F.3 d 99 3,

10 00 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. As Sh eri ff Krig ba um ack no wled ge d, th ere

is al way s a ris k of se xu al as sa ul ts whe n m al e po li ce of fic ers ex erci se of

fic ia l au th or it y

ov er fem al es

. Edwar ds ’s ex te ns iv e au th or i t y a n d res po ns ib il it ie s to m on it or Dru g

Co ur t pa rti ci pa nt s pr ov id e d a n id eal en vi ro nm en t fo r an of fic er to co erce se xu al ly

vu ln erab le fem al es in to un wan te d sex ua l co nt act

, an d th e da ng er si gn al s Edwar ds ’s

co nd uc t pr ov id ed to jail st aff an d Drug Co ur t team m em be rs m ad e th at sp eci fic ris k

ob vi ou s. Co m

pa re Harri s v. Ci ty of Pag ed al e, 82 1 F.2 d 49 9, 50 8 (8 th Ci r. 19 87 ),

wit h And rews v. Fo wler

, 98 F.3 d 10 69

, 10 76 (8 th Ci r. 19 96 ). Tho ug h pl ai nt iff s fai le d

to id en ti fy sp eci fic su pe rv is or y pr oc ed ur es th at sh ou ld ha ve be en in st it ut ed

, th e jury

co ul d reas on ab ly in fer th at ev en a m od es t le ve l of act iv e su p e r v i s io n wou ld ha ve

su cces sf ul ly de te rred Edwar ds ’s rep eat ed m is us e of hi s aut ho rit y for th e p ur

po se of

se xu al ab us e. Thi s is no t an “ is ol at ed in ci de nt ” cas e, ev en th ou gh Edwar ds was th e

on ly Dru g Co ur t tra ck er. Szab la

, 48 6 F.3 d at 39 3 (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. Viewi ng th e

tri al ev id en ce as a who le

, as we m us t, a reas on ab le jury co ul d fin d th at th e Co un ty’ s

i n a d eq ua te su pe rv is io n was th e m ov in g fo rce th at en ab le d Edwar ds to se xu al l y

as sa ul t t he pl ai nt iff

s.

II

.

Lin co ln Co un ty arg ue s th e di st ric t c o u r t a bu se d it s di sc ret io n in de nyin g th e

Co un ty’ s m ot io n for a ne w tri al be cau se th e jury award ed su bs ta nt ia l com pe ns at or y

da m ag es bu t “ no ev id en ce of a fin an ci al na tu re or de ta il ed te st im on y ab ou t th e ba si s

fo r an y su ch da m ag e award was p res en te d a t t ria l.”

“ A co m pe ns at or y da m ag e award fo r em ot io na l di st res s m ay be ba se d o n a

pl ai nt iff ’s own te st im on y

. Su ch an award m us t be su pp or te d by co m

pe te nt ev id en ce

of ge nu in e in

jury, bu t m ed ic al or ot he r ex pe rt evi de nc e is no t requ ire d.” Ben ne tt v.

Ri cel an d Fo od s, In c., 72 1 F.3 d 54 6, 55 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d) , c it in g

Kim v. Nas h Fi nc h Co

., 12 3 F.3 d 1 0 4 6

, 1 0 6 5 ( 8 th Ci r. 19 97 ). Here, pl ai nt iff s

-1 1-te st ifi ed at le ng th ab ou t th e se xu al act s th ey e n du red an d th e im pa ct Edwar ds ’s

act io ns as tra ck er ha d on th em , i nc lu di ng in te rfer in g w i t h t h e i r ab il it y to ov erco m e

dr ug ad di ct io ns

. The ev id en ce in cl u d e d Edwar ds ’s pl ea ag reem en t, in whi ch he

ad m it s to act s of ag gr av at ed se xu al ab us e, as well as an au di o reco rd in g of Edwar ds ’s

as sa ul t of S.M. in a m ot el ro om

. “ A m ot io n fo r ne w tri al ba se d on su ffi ci en cy of th e

ev id en ce sh ou ld be gr an te d on ly if th e ve rd ic t is ag ai ns t th e weig ht of th e ev id en ce.”

Ben ne tt

, 72 1 F.3 d at 55 2- 53 (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. As in Ben ne tt

, th e di st ric t co ur t di d

no t cl earl y ab us e it s di sc ret io n in de nyin g a n e w t r i a l b as ed on th e jury’ s da m ag e

award s.

The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

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

-1 2-