Folkerts v. City of Waverly, et al, No. 12-1083 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CasePlaintiffs, the legal guardians and conservators of their adult son, sued the City and an investigator with the police department, alleging deprivation of the son's constitutional and statutory rights. The district court granted summary judgment to defendants and plaintiffs appealed. The court held that the district court correctly granted summary judgment to the investigator where his behavior during the interrogation did not shock the conscience, the adequacy of the investigation did not shock the conscience, the investigation was not in retaliation, and the "charging decision" did not shock the conscience. The district court correctly granted summary judgment to the city where plaintiffs have not alleged a pattern of similar constitutional violations. In regards to plaintiffs' section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 794, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12132, claims, no reasonable jury could conclude that defendants failed to make reasonable accommodations for the son's disability. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Civil case - Civil rights. Even if defendant police officer violated plaintiffs' mentally-impaired son's fundamental rights during the investigation of an allegation that the son had engaged in criminal behavior, the officer was entitled to summary judgment because the violation does not shock the conscience as the record showed the officer altered his questioning style, more fully explained the son's Miranda rights, interviewed him in a less-intimidating setting and called the plaintiffs and invited them to the station for the questioning; nor did the adequacy of the investigation shock the conscience; plaintiffs failed to show the investigation was retaliatory; decision to charge the son did not shock the conscience; where the individual officer's actions did not support a Section 1983 action, there can be no city liability for failure to train; with respect to plaintiffs' ADA claims, no reasonable jury could conclude that defendants failed to make reasonable accommodations for the son's disability.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.