On March 27, 2016, Appellants visited a Menards store in Coon Rapids, Minnesota, to exchange a saw Mr. Waters had previously purchased for a new saw he had purchased online. Mr. Waters video-recorded their visit through a sunglass camera clipped to his shirt. 2 (He later posted excerpts of this video on his YouTube channel. See Dist. Ct. Dkt. 16-1.) An employee inside the store directed Appellants to the online pickup location inside the Menards lumberyard. Mr. Waters drove into the lumberyard with Mrs. Waters in the passenger seat. While it is undisputed that Menards had posted signs at the yard’s entrance and exit stating that vehicles leaving the lumberyard were subject to inspection, Appellants claim they did not see any such signs upon entry.
2 Appellants attached a highly-edited version of Mr. Waters’s sunglass camera recording and the officers’ squad car recordings to their Amended Complaint. Appellees produced the dashboard camera video from Officer Smith’s squad car in support of their motion to dismiss. The district court determined that the videos were “necessarily embraced by the pleadings” and considered them, together with the pleadings, when ruling on Appellees’ motion to dismiss. See Ashanti v. City of Golden Valley, 666 F.3d 1148, 1151 (8th Cir. 2012). Neither party objected to the district court’s use of the videos in its determination.
___________
The district court found that, with the exception of their Fourth Amendment claim for unlawful search, Appellants failed to plausibly allege any violation of their clearly-established constitutional rights, and that the officers were therefore entitled o qualified immunity on all but one of Appellants’ constitutional claims. While the district court determined that Appellants plausibly alleged a violation of their clearly- established constitutional right to be free from unlawful searches, it also determined that they failed to allege, as required for a damages claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, that the violation caused any compensable injury. The district court further found that Appellants failed to identify a City policy or custom that caused the alleged constitutional violations, that Appellants failed to plausibly allege their state law claims, and that Menards was not a state actor subject to § 1983 claims. The district court therefore granted the defendants’ motions and dismissed all of Appellants’ claims with prejudice. Appellants subsequently settled their claims against Menard, Inc.
__________
With respect to this claim, we need not discuss arguable reasonable suspicion because, in fact, the officers acted pursuant to reasonable suspicion in detaining Mr. Waters. The videos attached to the pleadings show that Mr. Waters refused to open his vehicle’s trunk at the lumberyard exit, despite signs at the entrance and exit informing visitors that vehicles would be inspected as they left the lumberyard. The requirement was clearly part of Menards’s customary protocol as customers exited the lumberyard after picking up merchandise in their vehicles. Officers Smith and Kirchner arrived at Menards in response to Mr. Waters’s 911 call and Mr. Waters refused to identify himself to the officers or to allow anyone to verify his purchase. At that point, Officer Smith and Officer Kirchner had “a particularized and objective basis” to detain Mr. Waters. Thomas v. Dickel, 213 F.3d 1023, 1025 (8th Cir. 2000) (quoting Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 696 (1996)).
___________
Here, the officers contend that Mrs. Waters voluntarily consented to the search of Appellants’ vehicle, while Appellants argue that Mrs. Waters was coerced into consenting. The district court concluded that Appellants alleged sufficient facts to preclude dismissal of this claim on voluntary consent grounds. However, the district court also found that Appellants failed to allege any actual, compensable injury stemming from the officers’ search of their vehicle’s trunk and, thus, failed to state a claim for damages under § 1983. A plaintiff seeking damages under § 1983 for an unreasonable search must allege (1) an unlawful search and (2) an “actual, compensable injury[,]” Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 n.7 (1994), because “the abstract value of a constitutional right may not form the basis for § 1983 damages.” Memphis Cmty. Sch. Dist. v. Stachura, 477 U.S. 299, 308 (1986). 8
The judgment of the district court is affirmed in full. -24- Appellate Case: 17-3827 Page: 24 Date Filed: 04/11/2019 Entry ID: 4776594
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit No. 17-3827
Charles Waters; Anita Waters Plaintiffs - Appellants v. B. Madson; Alyssa Newbury; City of Coon Rapids Defendants - Appellees Menard, Inc. Defendant Tom Hawley; Emily Kirchner Defendants - Appellees
Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis Submitted: November 15, 2018 Filed: April 11, 2019
Before COLLOTON, SHEPHERD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
More to come . . .
Related Links:
Perjurer Charlie Waters ... AKA Constitutional Crank ... AKA Converavtive Copwatch Gets Waters Et Al V. Kirchner Et Al Case #: 0:17-CV-00935 Dismissed? Too Stupid To Get Evidence That Proves ICOP Model 20/20-W Coon Rapids Squad Microphones Auto-Sync? KA16007391 Shows Evidence Destroyed, Right? Did Attorney Peter J Nickitas Stab Less-Than-Intelligent Waters In Back?
Charlie Waters AKA "Consitutional Crank" AKA "Conservative Copwatch" Of Waters Et Al V. Kirchner Et Al Case #: 0:17-CV-00935 Is A Perjurer, Isn't He? Waters Still Too Busy Waiving His Stupid Constitutional Handbook To Get His Missing Coon Rapids PD Dash Camera Video? Hey Coon Rapids Where Is My MDT Data, Huh? Mobile Data Terminal Data Proves Kirchner Switching Squads With Newbury A Lie, Doesn't It? Special Tx For Menards?
Round Two On Illegally Withheld City Of Fridley Off-Duty Mn State Patrol Sgt. Christopher Alan Daas Data? (Case No. 02-CR-16-3662 - Third Degree Refuse To Submit To Chemical Test Charge Magically & Mysteriously Dismissed, Right?) Where Oh Where Is Related Data For Recently Filed Lawsuit Waters Et Al VS Kirchner Et Al Case Number: 0:2017cv00935? FYI: @CoonRapidsPD Destroying Electronic Evidence To Cover Up Illegal @Menards Trunk Search, Right? Double FYI: Charlie Waters AKA "Constitutional Crank" Is A CopFlop (CopBlock) Dumbass, Isn't He?
City Of Fridley Harassing Nemmers Over Off-Duty Mn State Patrol Sgt. Christopher Alan Daas Data? City Of Fridley IP Address 75.146.166.13 Suddenly & Mysteriously Appears After Wally Wysopal, City Manager & Roberta Collins, Assistant To City Manager Hang Up Phone On Nemmers? Harassing Phone Call From Brian Weierke, Director of Public Safety? Deb Dahl, Human Resources Director Hangs Up On Nemmers After She Harasses Nemmers & Finds Out That Every Single Call Recorded?
Corrupt City Of Fridley Continues To Harass Nemmers Over Readily Availalbe, Free, Electronic Public Data For Off-Duty Mn State Patrol Sgt. Christopher Alan Daas? Fellow Anoka Co LEO - City Of Coon Rapids PD Emails LOGIS File Management System File Share Link To Nemmers? More Proof That Nemmers Is Being Discriminated Against & Harassed, Right? That's Right, Isn't It? Don't The Corrupt City Of Lakeville & Corrupt Dakota Co. Have Memberships With LOGIS? Fridley's Corrupt Director Of Public Safety Brian Weierke Makes Another Harassing Phone Call To Nemmers On 06-015-16? He Did, Didn't He?
