Mark C. Thomas v. Dale Hungerford, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Police Officer for the City of Kearney, Nebraska Michael Kirkwood, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Police Officer for the City of Kearney, Nebraska, Jeff Griss, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Police Officer for the City of Kearney, Nebraska

Citations: 23 F.3d 1450; 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 10375Docket: 93-3232

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; May 11, 1994; Federal Appellate Court

Combined Opinion SummaryCombined Opinion Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Mark C. Thomas sued Kearney, Nebraska police officer Jeff Griss under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, claiming Griss violated his constitutional rights by conducting an unlawful inventory search and planting evidence that led to his conviction for possessing burglary tools. Griss appealed the district court's denial of his motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity and absolute witness immunity, which the Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded.

The incident began when a motel manager reported Thomas for staying without paying or registering. Officers Griss and Sergeant Dreyer arrested him for theft of services. During the arrest, Thomas indicated he had a duffel bag in the motel room. Upon entering the room, Griss observed items including pliers and an "o" ring, which Thomas claimed were his. Griss placed these items in the duffel bag and transported Thomas to the Buffalo County Detention Center.

At the detention center, an inventory search of the bag revealed additional items, including lock-picking tools and a black ninja hood. Griss consulted the county attorney about possible charges against Thomas, who advised that the inventoried items were sufficient evidence for possession of burglary tools. Griss then seized the bag and its contents as evidence and placed them in the police department's evidence locker.

Thomas filed a pro se complaint alleging that Griss's inventory search was improperly conducted and that Griss had planted evidence. The magistrate judge interpreted Thomas's amended complaint as presenting a valid cause of action against Griss, leading to the district court's denial of Griss's summary judgment motion, which prompted this appeal.

Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability for actions taken in their discretionary roles unless their conduct breaches "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights" that a reasonable person would recognize. The initial step in evaluating a qualified immunity claim involves determining if the plaintiff has alleged a constitutional violation. A constitutional right must be clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. 

The district court found that an inventory search of Thomas's duffel bag at the Buffalo County Detention Center was lawful, as police are permitted to inventory property from individuals being jailed. However, the court denied Griss's summary judgment motion due to insufficient evidence that he adhered to standard procedures during the inventory process. It was identified that Ward, not Griss, conducted the inventory of the bag, leading Thomas to argue that Griss should be held liable for allegedly participating in an improperly conducted search.

For an inventory search to be deemed reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, it must follow standardized procedures to prevent it from becoming a pretext for general rummaging. Thomas refused to sign the inventory form since it did not list all items found, prompting Ward to itemize each item in the bag at Thomas's request. Therefore, Thomas cannot assert that the search was a guise for uncovering evidence of a crime, as he initiated the inventory process.

Furthermore, Thomas contended that Griss's presence during the search was unlawful due to non-compliance with established procedures. However, this issue need not be resolved since Thomas waived his right to privacy over the duffel bag's contents by requesting the inventory in Griss’s presence. Thus, Griss's presence did not infringe upon Thomas's Fourth Amendment rights.

Griss completed a police department property report after securing the contents of a duffel bag, which Thomas claims constituted an unlawful inventory search. However, Thomas lost his legitimate expectation of privacy in the bag's contents when he requested an inventory. Lawful seizure of items as evidence permits subsequent lawful searches while in police custody. Griss lawfully seized the bag's contents as they were in plain view during a valid search, warranting summary judgment in his favor.

Regarding Thomas's claim that Griss planted a black ninja hood and an "o" ring in the duffel bag, the magistrate judge interpreted this as an accusation of perjury related to Griss's trial testimony. Although officers are absolutely immune from liability for perjurious testimony under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, Thomas contends that Griss's actions went beyond perjury to include evidence planting. Despite this, the district court should have granted Griss's summary judgment motion.

Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact. The record indicates that the "o" ring was in Thomas's possession at the time of arrest and was not listed on the inventory form because Griss confiscated it later. Thomas does not dispute these facts, eliminating any genuine issue regarding the "o" ring's presence in the duffel bag. However, the absence of the hood from the inventory form remains unexplained, leading Thomas to argue that whether it was in the duffel bag during the inventory is a material fact. Griss asserts that he first saw the hood when it was removed for inventory, and Thomas has not presented evidence to counter this claim.

Thomas failed to respond to Griss's summary judgment motion, instead claiming that Griss's evidence raises a factual issue. Despite this claim, the absence of the hood on the inventory form does not materially affect Thomas's allegations, particularly given the undisputed evidence that Griss did not plant the hood. Thomas's assertion that the items were planted required him to provide specific facts in response to the motion, as merely relying on his complaint's allegations is insufficient. The court determined that since Thomas did not present the necessary facts to demonstrate a genuine issue for trial, Griss is entitled to summary judgment. Consequently, the order denying Griss's motion is reversed, and the case is remanded to the district court for judgment dismissing the complaint. Additionally, it is noted that a district court's denial of a qualified immunity claim is considered an immediately appealable decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Thomas's claim was reviewed by a magistrate due to being filed without legal representation, in accordance with local district court rules.