Court Opinion

ID: 9962472
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-23 18:01:08.540193+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:21:16.513053
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-1101     Document: 010111036680      Date Filed: 04/23/2024   Page: 1
                                                                                 FILED
                                                                     United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                         April 23, 2024
                          _________________________________
                                                                        Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                            Clerk of Court
  WILLIAM MONTGOMERY,

        Plaintiff - Appellant,

  v.                                                         No. 23-1101
                                                (D.C. No. 1:22-CV-00011-PAB-MEH)
  BRETT COHN; TREVOR CUAZ,                                    (D. Colo.)

        Defendants - Appellees.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before TYMKOVICH, PHILLIPS, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges.
                  _________________________________

       William Montgomery, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s

 order dismissing his suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against law enforcement officers

 Brett Cohn and Trevor Cuaz on the grounds of qualified immunity. Exercising

 jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.1

       *
         After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
 unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
 this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
 ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
 precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral
 estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with
 Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
       1
         This appeal is like several others filed by Mr. Montgomery. He has a history
 of entering Walmart stores with previously purchased items like RV lights stuffed in
 his pockets, claiming that he is thinking about returning them, but he never does.
 Instead, he selects some new merchandise, pays for it, declines a bag, and takes a
Appellate Case: 23-1101     Document: 010111036680      Date Filed: 04/23/2024      Page: 2

                            MONTGOMERY’S COMPLAINT

          In 2020, Mr. Montgomery entered a Walmart store located in Centennial,

 Colorado. He alleged that when he finished shopping, he paid for his purchases,

 declined plastic bags for environmental reasons, and proceeded towards the northern

 exit with his items in a shopping cart. However, before he reached the exit, he

 decided to take a detour through the bakery section. When he discovered the bakery

 did not have what he was looking for, he proceeded to the northern exit, where he

 was asked by a Walmart employee to show a receipt. When he refused, the employee

 blocked his path and continued to ask for a receipt. Mr. Montgomery changed course

 and tried to leave through the southern exit; however, his path was blocked by a

 second employee who had been told by the first employee not to let him leave the

 store.

          Mr. Montgomery was escorted by a third employee into a loss prevention

 office. In the meantime, the second employee contacted the Arapahoe County

 Sheriff’s Office and reported that the store had detained a shoplifting suspect who

 refused to produce a receipt. Sergeant Cohn and Deputy Cuaz arrived on the scene

 shortly thereafter.

 circuitous route back through the store with the unbagged items before trying to exit
 the store. His apparent goal to is to induce employees to detain him for shoplifting
 and contact law enforcement. When Mr. Montgomery is searched and/or arrested,
 he sues under § 1983 for the alleged violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.
 See, e.g., Montgomery v. Lore, No. 23-1106, 2023 WL 8613523, at *1-2 (10th Cir.
 Dec. 13, 2023); Montgomery v. Calvano, No. 21-1134, 2022 WL 1132212, *1-2
 (10th Cir. Apr. 18, 2022).

                                            2
Appellate Case: 23-1101    Document: 010111036680       Date Filed: 04/23/2024    Page: 3

       Sergeant Cohn began his investigation by asking Mr. Montgomery to provide

 his identification. He then asked the third employee if Mr. Montgomery had a receipt

 and was told that he did not. According to Mr. Montgomery, Sergeant Cohn asked

 him numerous times to show him a receipt, and when he refused, he was told that he

 would be cited for shoplifting. Sergeant Cohn then tried to collect what he believed

 was the stolen merchandise, but Montgomery refused, saying “‘[t]hat’s my stuff,

 man.’” R., vol. I at 14. Sergeant Cohn turned to Deputy Cuaz “and said . . . ‘Hey

 Cuaz, come here, he doesn’t want to let us take his stuff, so we need to put him in

 cuffs.’” Id. at 15. After Mr. Montgomery was placed in handcuffs, Deputy Cuaz

 patted him down and emptied his pockets, removing “his cell phone, keys, wallet,

 medical spit jar, two RV lights, a tub of sour cream, and a store receipt for some of

 [the] recently purchased merchandise.” Id.

       After comparing the merchandise with the receipt discovered during the

 search, the officers determined that Mr. Montgomery had paid for some items, but

 not others. However, Mr. Montgomery alleges that Deputy Cuaz’s search was flawed

 because he failed to discover “a separate receipt for his non-food items.” Id. The

 handcuffs were removed, and Mr. Montgomery was issued a summons and complaint

 for shoplifting the non-food items and RV lights.

       A few months later, the district attorney dropped the charges and Walmart

 returned the items to Mr. Montgomery. Nearly two years later, Mr. Montgomery

 sued under § 1983 for three Fourth Amendment violations, namely (1) unreasonable

 search of his person; (2) unreasonable seizure of property; and (3) unlawful arrest.

                                            3
Appellate Case: 23-1101    Document: 010111036680        Date Filed: 04/23/2024     Page: 4

                          DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS

       Sergeant Cohn and Deputy Cuaz moved to dismiss on the grounds of qualified

 immunity. The magistrate judge recommended that the complaint be dismissed.

 Mr. Montgomery objected. The district court adopted the recommendation and

 dismissed the claims for unreasonable search and seizure on the grounds that it was

 not clearly established that (1) Sergeant Cohn and Deputy Cuaz lacked arguable

 probable cause for the arrest and (2) Mr. Montgomery could not be searched incident

 to the arrest. This appeal followed.

                               STANDARD OF REVIEW

       “We review de novo the grant of a motion to dismiss under [Fed. R. Civ. P.]

 12(b)(6) due to qualified immunity.” Doe v. Woodard, 912 F.3d 1278, 1288

 (10th Cir. 2019). In conducting our review, “we accept as true all well-pleaded facts,

 as distinguished from conclusory allegations, and view those facts in the light most

 favorable to the nonmoving party.” Moya v. Schollenbarger, 465 F.3d 444, 455

 (10th Cir. 2006) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). “[T]he district

 court, and consequently this court, are limited to assessing the legal sufficiency of the

 allegations contained within the four corners of the complaint. Therefore, extraneous

 arguments in an appellate brief may not be relied upon to circumvent pleading

 defects.” Jojola v. Chavez, 55 F.3d 488, 494 (10th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted).

       Although we construe Mr. Montgomery’s pro se filings liberally, we cannot

 act as his advocate, see Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840

 (10th Cir. 2005), and we “will not supply additional factual allegations to round out

                                            4
Appellate Case: 23-1101     Document: 010111036680         Date Filed: 04/23/2024     Page: 5

 [his] complaint or construct a legal theory on [his] behalf,” Whitney v. New Mexico,

 113 F.3d 1170, 1173-74 (10th Cir. 1997).

                                QUALIFIED IMMUNITY

        In response to the motion to dismiss on the grounds of qualified immunity,

 Montgomery had the burden to show that (1) “a constitutional violation occurred,” and

 (2) “the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”

 Doe, 912 F.3d at 1289 (internal quotation marks omitted).            “A court evaluating

 qualified immunity is free to exercise its sound discretion in deciding which of the two

 prongs of the qualified immunity analysis should be addressed first. . . .” Id. (brackets

 and internal quotation marks omitted). “If the plaintiff fails to satisfy either part of the

 two-part inquiry, the court must grant the defendant qualified immunity.” Gross v.

 Pirtle, 245 F.3d 1151, 1156 (10th Cir. 2001).

        “To qualify as clearly established, a constitutional right must be sufficiently

 clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing

 violates that right.” Redmond v. Crowther, 882 F.3d 927, 935 (10th Cir. 2018)

 (internal quotation marks omitted). “At the motion to dismiss stage, it is the

 defendant’s conduct as alleged in the complaint that is scrutinized for objective legal

 reasonableness.” Doe, 912 F.3d at 1288 (brackets and internal quotation marks

 omitted).

        A right is clearly established “when a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit decision

 is on point, or if the clearly established weight of authority from other courts shows

 that the right must be as the plaintiff maintains.” Redmond, 882 F.3d at 935 (brackets

                                              5
Appellate Case: 23-1101    Document: 010111036680         Date Filed: 04/23/2024    Page: 6

 and internal quotation marks omitted). “The dispositive question is whether the

 violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established. We therefore must

 determine whether a right is clearly established in light of the specific context of the

 case, not as a broad general proposition.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks

 omitted). In other words, “a right is clearly established when a precedent involves

 materially similar conduct or applies with obvious clarity to the conduct at issue.”

 Apodaca v. Raemisch, 864 F.3d 1071, 1076 (10th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation

 marks omitted).

       “In the Fourth Amendment context, the result depends very much on the facts

 of each case, and the precedents must squarely govern the present case.” Aldaba v.

 Pickens, 844 F.3d 870, 877 (10th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted).

 “This high bar ensures qualified immunity protects all but the plainly incompetent or

 those who knowingly violate the law.” Redmond, 882 F.3d at 935 (internal quotation

 marks omitted).

                                      DISCUSSION

 Unlawful Arrest

       A police officer may arrest a person without a warrant if he has probable

 cause to believe the person committed a crime. Romero v. Fay, 45 F.3d 1472, 1476

 (10th Cir. 1995). If probable cause was lacking, the qualified immunity analysis

 turns on “whether extant clearly established law [at the time of the events at issue]

 would have placed a reasonable, similarly situated police officer on notice that no

 probable cause existed for the warrantless arrest[].” Quinn v. Young, 780 F.3d 998,

                                             6
Appellate Case: 23-1101    Document: 010111036680        Date Filed: 04/23/2024    Page: 7

 1007 (10th Cir. 2015). “As our qualified-immunity jurisprudence permits us to do,

 we exercise our discretion to proceed straight to the latter question and resolve this

 claim on the clearly-established-law prong of our qualified-immunity test.” Id.

       “As a practical matter, we implement this clearly-established-law standard by

 asking whether there was arguable probable cause for an arrest—if there was, a

 defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.” A.M. v. Holmes, 830 F.3d 1123, 1139

 (10th Cir. 2016) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). “In other words, in

 the § 1983 qualified-immunity context, an officer may be mistaken about whether he

 possesses actual probable cause to effect an arrest, so long as the officer’s mistake is

 reasonable—viz., so long as he possesses arguable probable cause.” Id. at 1140

 (internal quotation marks omitted).

       Here, there was arguable probable cause based on the following allegations in

 the complaint, including (1) dispatch was told that Walmart had detained a suspect

 for shoplifting; (2) Sergeant Cohn began an investigation as soon as he arrived on the

 scene; (3) during the investigation, Sergeant Cohn asked a Walmart employee

 whether Mr. Montgomery had a receipt and he was told that he did not; and

 (4) Mr. Montgomery refused to produce a receipt despite multiple requests to do so.

       Mr. Montgomery’s reliance on Baptiste v. J.C. Penney Co., 147 F.3d 1252

 (10th Cir. 1998), and Lusby v. T.G. & Y. Stores, Inc., 749 F.2d 1423 (10th Cir. 1984),

 vacated sub nom. City of Lawton v. Lusby, 474 U.S. 805 (1985), aff’d on

 reconsideration, 796 F.2d 1307 (10th Cir. 1986) is misplaced. In each of these cases,

 the arresting officer arrived on the scene after the alleged crime occurred and relied

                                            7
Appellate Case: 23-1101      Document: 010111036680       Date Filed: 04/23/2024    Page: 8

 solely on accusations made by a party whose reliability had been called into doubt or

 would have been called into doubt if the officer had done any investigation, such as

 by interviewing the suspect. See Baptiste, 147 F.3d at 1257 (concluding that the

 officers lacked reasonable grounds “to believe the shoplifting allegations made by

 store security guards in light of the conduct recorded on [a] videotape; [the suspect’s]

 explanation; her production of receipts[;] . . . and the search of her bag, purse, and

 pockets, which revealed no stolen merchandise”); Lusby, 749 F.2d at 1430 (noting

 the arresting officers arrived on the scene, “picked up the [suspects], handcuffed and

 frisked them and took them to jail without interviewing witnesses or conducting any

 inquiry to determine whether probable cause existed to arrest them”). These cases do

 not “squarely govern the present case,” Aldaba, 844 F.3d at 877 (internal quotation

 marks omitted).

 Search Incident to Arrest

       “In general, warrantless searches are per se unreasonable.” United States v.

 Knapp, 917 F.3d 1161, 1165 (10th Cir. 2019). However, “[o]ne exception [to the

 general rule] allows arresting officers to search the person of the accused when

 legally arrested.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added). Thus, if

 Mr. Montgomery was under arrest the search did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

       In his objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, Mr. Montgomery

 stated that because he was never transported to the police station and booked,

 Deputy Cuaz could not search him. But in its order overruling his objections, the

 district court determined that the argument was waived because Mr. Montgomery did

                                             8
Appellate Case: 23-1101       Document: 010111036680     Date Filed: 04/23/2024     Page: 9

 not raise the same “detailed arguments” in response to defendants’ motion to dismiss

 that he presented in his objections. R., vol. I at 112. Nonetheless, the court

 determined that even if the issue had been properly raised, “[Mr.] Montgomery was

 under arrest.” Id. at 113.

       While there is no litmus-paper test for determining when an investigative

 detention enters the realm of an arrest, an arrest is distinguished from an investigative

 detention “by the involuntary, ‘highly intrusive’ nature of the encounter.” Cortez v.

 McCauley, 478 F.3d 1108, 1115 (10th Cir. 2007). “The use of firearms, handcuffs,

 and other forceful techniques generally exceed the scope of an investigative detention

 and enter the realm of an arrest.” Id. at 1115-16 (brackets and internal quotation

 marks omitted); see Manzanares v. Higdon, 575 F.3d 1135, 1150 (10th Cir. 2009)

 (holding that “it has been clear for some time that the use of handcuffs generally

 converts a detention into an arrest”). But we need not decide whether

 Mr. Montgomery was under arrest because it was not clearly established that a

 reasonable police officer would have understood that Mr. Montgomery was not under

 arrest when he was placed in handcuffs. See Redmond, 882 F.3d at 935.

       We disagree with Mr. Montgomery that the decision in Knowles v. Iowa,

 525 U.S. 113 (1998), requires a different outcome. Knowles was stopped by an Iowa

 policeman for a traffic violation. The officer issued him a citation rather than

 arresting him. But after the citation was issued and Knowles was free to go, the

 officer conducted a full search of the car in which he uncovered marijuana and a

 pot pipe. Knowles maintained that “the search could not be sustained under the

                                            9
Appellate Case: 23-1101     Document: 010111036680          Date Filed: 04/23/2024     Page: 10

  ‘search incident to arrest’ exception . . . because he had not been placed under

  arrest.” Id. at 114.

         The Court agreed with Knowles that there was no right to search his person or

  vehicle incident to being issued a citation because neither rationale for the search

  incident to arrest exception—officer safety or the need to preserve evidence—was

  present. See id. at 116-17. But Knowles is inapposite because Mr. Montgomery was

  placed under arrest before he was searched. “It is the fact of the lawful arrest which

  establishes the authority to search, and . . . in the case of a lawful custodial arrest a

  full search of the person is . . . an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth

  Amendment.” United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 235 (1973) (internal

  quotation marks omitted).

                                       CONCLUSION

         The judgment of the district court is affirmed. Appellant’s motion for leave to

  proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

                                                Entered for the Court

                                                Gregory A. Phillips
                                                Circuit Judge

                                              10