DISCLAIMER: The following unofficial case summaries are prepared by the clerk's office
as a courtesy to the reader. They are not part of the opinion of the court.
212640P.pdf 11/01/2022 Dwayne Furlow v. Jon Belmar
U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 21-2640
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
[PUBLISHED] [Erickson, Author, with Shepherd and Stras, Circuit Judges]
Civil case - Civil rights. In this challenge to St. Louis County
Missouri's system allowing police officers to issue electronic "wanted"
notices authorizing any other officer to seize a person and take him into
custody for questioning without any review by a neutral magistrate before
issuance, the district court granted the defendants' motion for summary
judgment and denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
Plaintiffs, who were arrested on wanteds, appeal. Held: Because
circumstances may exist under which the Wanteds System is constitutional,
plaintiff's facial challenge to the system fails; defendant officers
Partin and Walsh were entitled to qualified immunity for plaintiff's
arrest because there was doubt that the officers' actions violated clearly
established law; however, with respect to the actions of defendant
Clements, even a minimal investigation on her part would have shown that
any probable cause for the arrest had vanished, and she was not entitled
to qualified immunity; defendant Walsh was entitled to qualified immunity
for the arrest of plaintiff Furlow because there was arguable probable
cause he had committed a domestic assault; the evidence does not show a
persistent pattern of unconstitutional arrests so pervasive that it can be
said to constitute a custom or usage with the force of law, and the
district court did not err in dismissing the plaintiffs' municipal
liability claim; the district court did not err in dismissing plaintiffs'
substantive due process claim where plaintiffs stated a Fourth Amendment
claim; on remand, the district court can reconsider whether class
certification is appropriate in light of this decision. Judge Shepherd,
concurring in part and dissenting in part. Judge Stras, concurring in part
and concurring in the judgment.