Opinion ID: 794277
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: St. Louis County

Text: 38 Reasonover argues St. Louis County is liable under Monell for failing to train its employees properly, including Officer Welling and Goldman. She claims St. Louis County failed to train or supervise Officer Welling on his duties in disclosing Brady materials to the prosecutor, and failed to train or supervise Goldman on his obligations under Brady to disclose exculpatory materials to the defense. To establish her claim, Reasonover must show St. Louis County's failure to train or supervise amounts to deliberate indifference to the rights of persons with whom the police come into contact and the failure is the moving force behind the constitutional violation. Harris, 489 U.S. at 388, 389, 109 S.Ct. 1197 (quotation omitted). 39 We agree with the district court that Reasonover presented insufficient evidence of inadequate training or supervision by St. Louis County of its employees. Officer Welling stated in his affidavit that when he joined the Buckley murder investigation, he knew he was required to secure and deliver to the prosecutor all evidence relating to the crime, including exculpatory evidence. Goldman stated in his affidavit that before the investigation of Reasonover, he knew of his obligation to disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense. Goldman further stated it was the policy of the St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney's office to disclose all Brady materials. These testimonies are all case facts from the unchallenged findings by the district court. Thus, Reasonover fails to demonstrate Officer Welling's and Goldman's alleged violations of Reasonover's rights were the result of inadequate training or supervision by St. Louis County. 40 We further agree with the district court that Reasonover fails to show St. Louis County had an unconstitutional custom of failing to document exculpatory evidence. See Bd. of County Comm'rs of Bryan County v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 404, 117 S.Ct. 1382, 137 L.Ed.2d 626 (1997) ([A]n act performed pursuant to a `custom' that has not been formally approved by an appropriate decisionmaker may fairly subject a municipality to liability on the theory that the relevant practice is so widespread as to have the force of law. (citation omitted)). Reasonover presents no evidence of a widespread practice of violating police and prosecutorial obligations under Brady.