Robbins v. City of Des Moines, No. 19-2492 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the City and three police officers, in their individual and official capacities, alleging violations of his constitutional rights. The district court granted summary judgment for defendants. The Eighth Circuit affirmed in part, holding that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiff has not shown a deprivation of a clearly established right. In this case, officers observed plaintiff recording both vehicles near the police station and officers and civilian employees entering and leaving the police station; the officers possessed other significant information: they were aware of recent criminal activity involving cars parked in the area, and they were aware of a previous filming and stalking incident that escalated into the murder of two officers; and plaintiff was non-responsive, evasive, and confrontational. The court explained that, in light of the circumstances, the officers' conduct was not objectively unreasonable under clearly established law. Furthermore, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity for the Terry stop because they had at least arguable reasonable suspicion. Finally, there is no cognizable Monell claim.
However, the court reversed in part, holding that the officers are not entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity on plaintiff's claim of false arrest. The court explained that a reasonable officer would not have believed he had probable cause to arrest plaintiff for loitering because there is no evidence plaintiff was blocking the sidewalk or disrupting the activity of the police station. Furthermore, regardless of whether the Place exception applies to personal effects such as phones and cameras, the duration of the seizure here was unreasonable. Therefore, the officers violated plaintiff's clearly established right to be free of unreasonable seizures of his property and are not entitled to qualified immunity.
Court Description: [Erickson, Author, with Loken and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. Plaintiff's actions in filming the entrance to the police station and engaging in confrontational behavior went beyond any constitutionally protected recording activity; defendants' actions, when combined with the defendant police officers' knowledge of vehicles being vandalized and stolen in the area and their personal knowledge that a previous filming incident led to the murder of two officers, could cause an objectively reasonable person in the officers' position to suspect plaintiff was up to more than simply recording police; the court cannot say the officers' conduct was objectively unreasonable under clearly established law, nor in violation of the First Amendment; defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for the Terry stop they made because they had at least arguable reasonable suspicion given their knowledge of past incidents and plaintiff's evasive and uncooperative behavior; however, the officers lacked probable cause for plaintiff's arrest and they are not entitled to qualified immunity on his claim for false arrest; under the facts of the case, the government interests did not outweigh plaintiff's possessory interest in his phone and camera; the warrantless seizure of the items violated plaintiff's clearly established right to be free of unreasonable seizures of his property, and the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity on this claim; no recognizable Monell claim exists as the evidence is insufficient to show the kind of deliberate indifference needed to establish liability.
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.