Kuessner v. Wooten, No. 19-1173 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this CaseThe Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant in a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action brought by plaintiff, alleging unreasonable seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The court concluded that plaintiff failed to cite any Eighth Circuit case considering probable cause under similar circumstances where an officer has probable cause to make a DWI arrest. Because there is no "precedent" or "controlling authority," the court looks for a "robust consensus of cases." The court explained that what constituted probable cause for a DWI arrest was not "sufficiently clear" at the time of arrest. Furthermore, a survey of DWI cases in Missouri demonstrates that even if defendant acted without arguable probable cause, existing law did not give him “fair warning” that his conduct was unconstitutional. In this case, it was not clearly established that defendant lacked arguable probable cause to believe that plaintiff had been driving based on the available facts: arriving alone, at the remote police station, early in the morning, keys in hand, to pick up another individual who had been arrested. Finally, the district court did not err in denying plaintiff's Rule 56(e)(1) and 59(e) motions.
Court Description: [Benton, Author, with Smith, Chief Judge, and Kobes, Circuit Judge] Civil case - Civil rights. There is no Eighth Circuit precedent or controlling authority as to whether an officer has probable cause to make a DWI arrest under the circumstances presented, and the court looks for a robust consensus of cases to answer the question; a survey of Missouri cases demonstrates that even if the defendant officer acted without probable cause in arresting plaintiff, existing law did not give him fair warning that his conduct was unconstitutional, and he was properly granted summary judgment; no error in denying plaintiff's Rule 56(e)(1) and 59(e) motions.
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.