Zac Foxhoven v. Danny Stacy, No. 23-1692 (8th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Shepherd, and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. Plaintiff cannot bring a Fourth Amendment claim to vindicate the constitutional rights of another; officers did not need a warrant to enter the driveway where they arrested defendant, and they had probable cause to arrest him for obstruction.
Download PDF
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Court for the District of South Dakota - Western ____________ Submitted: December 18, 2023 Filed: December 21, 2023 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, SHEPHERD, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.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-
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.
