Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Howard Ray Smith v. John Walsh, Sheriff, Cleveland County, Oklahoma Cliff Winkler Kevin Austin the Board of County Commissioners of Cleveland County, Oklahoma, and Michael J. Followwill John's Trucking, Inc., an Oklahoma Corporation
Citations: 48 F.3d 1233; 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 18178; 1995 WL 91165Docket: 93-6361
Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; February 22, 1995; Federal Appellate Court
Unpublished opinions may now be cited if they hold persuasive value on a material issue and proper copies are attached or provided to the Court and parties, as per the General Order dated November 29, 1993. In the case of Howard Ray Smith v. John Walsh, et al., the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment based on qualified immunity for the defendants. Smith claimed he was unlawfully arrested and that his trailer was unlawfully seized by sheriff's deputies Winkler and Austin, who acted under the sheriff's policy. Smith had a purchase contract for the trailer, which was reported stolen by the seller, Followwill, who retained the title. After deputies were informed of the theft and met Followwill at the scene, they seized the trailer from a locked lot where Smith had parked it. The court reviewed the summary judgment de novo, determining that there was no genuine issue of material fact and that the defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court analyzed whether the law was clearly established at the time of the incident and concluded that the deputies had probable cause to believe the trailer was stolen, despite Smith's presentation of the purchase contract. Thus, the court upheld the application of qualified immunity for the deputies. Probable cause is defined as a flexible standard requiring only that facts available to an officer would lead a reasonable person to believe that certain items may be stolen property. In this case, it was established that the trailer in question had been reported stolen, supported by a stolen property report and a valid title shown by Followwill at Hopson's lot. Smith's presentation of a purchase contract does not diminish the officers' reasonable belief that the trailer was stolen. Smith contends that, despite probable cause, the officers needed to satisfy an exception to the warrant requirement for a warrantless seizure, specifically the plain view exception, which is disputed due to uncertainty regarding consent for entry onto Hopson's lot. However, Smith lacks standing to challenge the deputies' entry, as he did not own, possess, or control the lot. Consequently, the question of consent is irrelevant to his Fourth Amendment rights. Regarding Smith's claim of unlawful arrest during the search and detention by deputies, it was determined that both actions were objectively reasonable and justified based on the circumstances known to the officers at the time. Therefore, Smith's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated. The court found no genuine factual dispute regarding the violation of clearly established law, affirming the district court's granting of summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The judgment from the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma is affirmed, and it notes that this order is not a binding precedent except under specific legal doctrines. The motion for summary judgment filed by Followwill and John's Trucking was also decided in favor of the defendants, leading to a voluntarily dismissed appeal by Smith.