Bowden v. Martin, No. 14-3074 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseSimmons and Gyurica were fishing on a bridge near Bowden’s property. Bowden shouted to the men to identify themselves; he fired a shotgun from his deck when they failed to respond. Bowden and Simmons then had a verbal altercation, with Bowden holding his shotgun. Each called the police. Deputy Martin first spoke with Simmons and Gyurica at the residence of Simmons’s grandmother, Voyles. They reported that Bowden shot at them. Bowden said that he shot away from the men. Martin relayed these circumstances to his supervisor, who ordered Martin to seize the shotgun and to draft a probable cause statement averring that there was probable cause that Bowden had unlawfully used a weapon. The parties dispute involvement by the circuit clerk, a friend of Voyles. Martin later admitted that he did not think that Bowden had violated Missouri law. The Jefferson County prosecutor obtained an arrest warrant. A Missouri court held a preliminary hearing and determined that there was probable cause. Bowden was acquitted. In Bowden’s suit alleging violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, the court denied the defendants summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The Eighth Circuit reversed, finding that the facts, in the light most favorable to Bowden do not show violation of his constitutional rights.
Court Description: Colloton, Author, with Murphy and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. On claim the defendant police officer violated plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights by obtaining a warrant for his arrest, the district court erred in denying the motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity filed by the officer; at the time the officer swore out the affidavit for plaintiff's arrest, he had probable cause to believe plaintiff had committed the criminal offense of exhibiting a shotgun capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. Sec. 571.030.1(4).
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.