Roderick Talley v. City of Little Rock, No. 21-2806 (8th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Benton, and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. Even without the challenged materials, the search warrant affidavit established probable cause to believe drugs would be found in Talley's residence; as the officers did not violate Talley's constitutional rights, the City cannot be liable under Section 1983.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 21-2806 ___________________________ Roderick G. Talley lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. City of Little Rock, a municipality; Kenton Buckner, individually, et al. lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central ____________ Submitted: January 23, 2023 Filed: January 26, 2023 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, BENTON, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Roderick Talley appeals the district court’s1 grant of summary judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that Little Rock police officers 1 The Honorable James M. Moody, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. violated his constitutional rights in searching his apartment pursuant to an invalid noknock search warrant and the City is liable for this unconstitutional conduct. Upon careful review, we agree with the district court that, even without false statements in the warrant affidavit regarding what the officers personally observed during an informant’s controlled drug buy, the affidavit provided sufficient probable cause that drugs would be found in Talley’s residence based on what the informant told the officers and other information the officers received that Talley was involved in drug activity on the premises. Nor did the officers rely on a no-knock warrant that “was based on an affidavit so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable.” Kiesling v. Holladay, 859 F.3d 529, 533 (8th Cir. 2017) (quotation omitted). Because we conclude there was no underlying constitutional violation, the City cannot be liable. See Furlow v. Belmar, 52 F.4th 393, 406 (8th Cir. 2022). Accordingly, we affirm. ______________________________ -2-
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.
