Rodney Brown v. Matthew T. Boettigheimer, No. 21-2460 (8th Cir. 2022)

Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary

Plaintiff was removed from a political rally and arrested for violating a St. Louis, Missouri ordinance that prohibits disturbing the peace. After Plaintiff was acquitted of that charge in state court, he brought claims against, as pertinent to this appeal, three St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department officers. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the officers, and Plaintiff appealed.
 
The Eighth Circuit affirmed holding that it was objectively reasonable for the officers to mistakenly believe, under the totality of the circumstances that Plaintiff was engaged in acts or conduct inciting violence or intended to provoke others to violence. The court explained that two of the officers had arguable probable cause to arrest and then initiate prosecution against Plaintiff meaning that it was not clearly established that doing so would violate Plaintiff’s right to be free from unlawful seizure, malicious prosecution, or First Amendment retaliation. Thus, the court affirmed the district court’s grant of qualified immunity to those officers. Further, the court wrote that the district court properly granted qualified immunity to the remaining officer because it was not clearly established that initiating prosecution against Plaintiff would violate his Fourth Amendment right to be free from malicious prosecution or his corresponding right under Missouri law.

Court Description: [Shepherd, Author, with Erickson and Stras, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. Plaintiff was arrested for disturbing the peace at a political rally for then-Presidential candidate Donald Trump. After he was acquitted in state court, he sued defendants, the arresting officers, for violating his civil rights. The district court granted the officers' motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. Under the totality of the circumstances, the two arresting officers had probable cause at the time of the arrest to believe that plaintiff was engaged in acts or conduct inciting violence or intended to provoke others to violence; further, the two arresting offices had arguable probable cause to arrest and then initiate prosecution against plaintiff because it was not clearly established that doing so would violate plaintiff's right to be free from unlawful seizure, malicious prosecution or First Amendment retaliation; the third officer, who merely wrote up the incident report, was also entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff's malicious prosecution claim, again because there was arguable probable cause to support plaintiff's arrest and the initiation of criminal charges.

Primary Holding

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of officers in Plaintiff’s various constitutional law and civil rights violation claims.


Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.

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.