Court Opinion

ID: 9911978
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-21 16:01:13.816539+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:58:02.671561
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                           For the Eighth Circuit
                       ___________________________

                               No. 23-1692
                       ___________________________

       Zac William Foxhoven, Vessel; by William Foxhoven - Beneficiary

                       lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

                                          v.

 Danny Stacy; Geody Vandewater, official capacity as Police Chief of the City of
 Sturgis Police Department de-facto private for profit corporation with Dun and
                     Bradstreet #xx-xxx-xxx; Darnell Pate

                     lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees
                                      ____________

                   Appeal from United States District Court
                   for the District of South Dakota - Western
                                  ____________

                         Submitted: December 18, 2023
                           Filed: December 21, 2023
                                 [Unpublished]
                                ____________

Before LOKEN, SHEPHERD, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
                          ____________

PER CURIAM.
       Zac Foxhoven appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of his civil rights action
alleging that police officers entered private property without a warrant and arrested
him without probable cause. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court
properly dismissed the complaint. See Allen v. Monico, 27 F.4th 1372, 1376 (8th
Cir. 2022).

       To the extent Foxhoven argues that the officers’ entry into the garage and arrest
of the initial suspect was unlawful, he cannot bring a Fourth Amendment claim to
vindicate the constitutional rights of another. See United States v. Wright, 844 F.3d
759, 762 (8th Cir. 2016). We further conclude that officers did not need a warrant to
enter the driveway, which is where they ultimately arrested Foxhoven. See United
States v. Lakoskey, 462 F.3d 965, 973 (8th Cir. 2006).

       Finally, we agree with the district court that the officers had probable cause to
arrest Foxhoven for obstruction due to his refusal to obey their instructions to back
away. See Ehlers v. City of Rapid City, 846 F.3d 1002, 1009 (8th Cir. 2017). While
Foxhoven argues that the probable cause affidavit included false statements, the
officers had probable cause based on the undisputed facts as shown by the videos
Foxhoven submitted. See Allen, 27 F.4th at 1376.

      Accordingly, we affirm.
                     ______________________________

      1
       The Honorable Charles B. Kornmann, United States District Judge for the
District of South Dakota.

                                          -2-