Court Opinion

ID: 9776682
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 19:42:05.993225+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:41.336573
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
PER CURIAM.
In his motion for rehearing, plaintiff contends that liability of the city under § 1983 may be grounded upon its ownership and use of the municipal traffic com*774puter system which generated the “warrant” entry acted upon by Officer Weide-meyer. Based upon this Court’s conclusion that plaintiffs arrest by Officer Weidemeyer under the particular circumstances present here was unlawful, plaintiff urges that the city’s practice of issuing such “warrants” deprived him of his civil rights. However, as noted in the Court’s opinion, municipal liability under § 1983 may follow only from the implementation of “official policy” or “governmental custom.” The peculiar flaw in Officer Weidemeyer’s actions, pertinent to this discussion, is that his arrest of plaintiff occurred without a warrant and beyond the territorial limits of the city of Kansas City. Had the computer “warrant” been executed within the city, no such problem would have existed. In order to make a prima facie case against the city under the theory suggested by plaintiff, there would have to be proof that it was the policy or custom of the city to cause warrantless arrests of this particular type outside its territorial limits. No such proof was elicited, and plaintiff’s claim therefore fails.