Schaffer v. Beringer, No. 15-3438 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePlaintiffs filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against Vermillion Police Department (VPD) officers, alleging violations of their First and Fourth Amendment rights. Given the totality of the circumstances, the relatively low .02 BAC limit under the minor DUI statute, and the absence of judicial decisions interpreting that statute, the court found that the officers had at least arguable probable cause to believe that Plaintiff Callissa Schaffer had violated SDCL 32-23-21. Therefore, the court concluded that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to plaintiffs' claim that officers violated Callissa's Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures. Likewise, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to plaintiffs' claim that the officers deprived Callissa of her Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches when she was frisked before being placed in the patrol car. The court also concluded that Officer Foley is entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiffs' claim that he deprived Callissa of her Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches because he purposefully misrepresented facts in his affidavit for a search warrant. In this case, plaintiffs failed to show that any of the omissions at issue were intentional or reckless. Finally, the court concluded that the officers are also entitled to qualified immunity on Jill Schaffer's claim that the officers retaliated against her for engaging in speech protected by the First Amendment, and Chief Betzen is entitled to summary judgment on both the official capacity and individual capacity claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Gruender, Author, with Beam and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. The defendant police officers had arguable probable cause to place plaintiff Callissa under arrest for violating SDCL Section 32-23-1, and the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on her claim that they violated her Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures; where officers have at least arguable probable cause to perform an arrest, they cannot be held liable for performing a search incident to that arrest; plaintiffs cannot show that defendant Foley made any intentional or reckless omissions in the warrant application; claim that defendants retaliated against plaintiff Jill for engaging in speech protected by the First Amendment rejected as the minor discrepancies in the officers' statements did not amount to perjury and did not rise to the level of an adverse action that would chill a person from engaging in protected activity; plaintiffs' "existence of a policy and failure to train" claims against the defendant police chief rejected as they failed to show the existence of a policy or failure to train and, even if they did, they failed to show that such policy or failure to train led to any violation of their rights. [ November 18, 2016
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.