Hill v. Scott: the Eighth Circuit Upholds the Basic Principles of the Objective Reasonableness Standard in a Case of Mistaken Identity Arrest

• Publication year: 2022

38 Creighton L. Rev. 691. HILL V. SCOTT: THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT UPHOLDS THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF THE OBJECTIVE REASONABLENESS STANDARD IN A CASE OF MISTAKEN IDENTITY ARREST

Creighton Law Review

Vol. 38

INTRODUCTION

When a citizen sues a state or local official pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the official may assert the defense of qualified immunity, which protects government officials from "the ordeal of protracted litigation."(fn1) The defense of qualified immunity frequently arises when a law enforcement officer arrests the wrong person pursuant to a facially valid warrant.(fn2) If a wrongful arrestee brings a § 198(fn3) action against the officer, the courts are left to balance the competing interests of citizens' constitutional guarantees on the one hand and effective discharge of law enforcement practices on the other.(fn3) The Supreme Court of the United States defined the modern test for qualified immunity in Harlow v. Fitzgerald.(fn4) In Harlow, the Court determined, "government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."(fn5) Federal courts are relatively consistent in adhering to the principle set forth in Harlow, generally holding that a mistaken arrest based on a facially valid warrant does not violate the Fourth Amendment if the officers reasonably mistook the arrestee for the person named in the warrant.(fn6) However, a qualified immunity analysis is fact specific.(fn7) An officer's duty to perform a reasonably thorough investigation before arresting a person is a theme closely related to a wrongful arrest.(fn8)

In Hill v. Scott,(fn9) Brian Hill ("Hill") brought a claim against a St. Paul, Minnesota police officer, Patrick Scott ("Scott"), alleging Scott had violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by arresting Hill without verifying in-formation that indicated an arrest warrant was for Hill.(fn10) Ultimately, Scott realized he had arrested the wrong person, and officers released Hill a short time later.(fn11) The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled in favor of Scott, determining in the totality of the circumstances, he had acted reasonably in believing Hill was the person named in the warrant and that "no reasonable officer would have known failing to investigate further would violate the Fourth Amendment."(fn12) The court reasoned none of the information Scott obtained from the dispatcher contradicted what Scott knew about Hill prior to the arrest.(fn13) In discussing the issue of Scott's duty to investigate further, the Eighth Circuit questioned how much investigation the Constitution required, and held Scott had done enough to satisfy the Fourth Amendment.(fn14)

This Note will first detail the facts and holding of Hill.(fn15) Next, this Note will examine case law dealing with qualified immunity in the context of wrongful arrests and seizures.(fn16) Finally, this Note will closely scrutinize four issues in the Eighth Circuit's decision in Hill.(fn17) First, this Note will establish the Hill court correctly followed the principles of qualified immunity analysis outlined in Anderson v. Creighton.(fn18) Second, this Note will establish the Hill court correctly followed the specific principles of qualified immunity analysis outlined in cases dealing with mistaken arrests based on a facially valid warrant.(fn19) Next, this Note will establish the Hill court correctly recognized an officer's wide discretion in executing an arrest warrant, despite: (1) discrepancies between the description of the arrestee in the warrant and the arrestee's actual physical characteristics; and (2) an arrestee's exculpatory statements.(fn20) Finally, this Note will establish that while the Hill court correctly distinguished a prior Eighth Circuit case dealing with an officer's duty to investigate further, the Hill court incorrectly analyzed an officer's duty to further investigate in the context of a false arrest based on a facially valid warrant.(fn21)

FACTS AND HOLDING

In Hill v. Scott,(fn22) two officers with the St. Paul, Minnesota, Police Department arrested Brian Arthur Hill ("Hill") pursuant to a warrant for another man named Brian Hill.(fn23) On June 15, 1999, a dispute arose at Hill's home when Michael Rasmussen ("Rasmussen"), a St. Paul Parking Enforcement Officer, attempted to obtain a disabled parking permit belonging to Hill's father.(fn24) Hill refused to give Rasmussen the permit; Rasmussen called for police back-up because he felt threatened.(fn25) Officers Patrick Scott ("Scott"), Catherine Pavlak ("Pavlak"), and Mark Pierce ("Pierce") responded to Rasmussen's call for back-up.(fn26)

Officer Scott had previous encounters with Hill.(fn27) In 1996, Officer Scott allegedly entered Hill's home without a warrant and assaulted Hill.(fn28) Additionally, Hill had an unfortunate past with the St. Paul Police Department.(fn29) In 1995, officers of the St. Paul Police Department assaulted Hill outside a bar; Hill alleged that during the assault, an officer used a racial slur.(fn30) In 1996, officers of the St. Paul Police Department accosted Hill at his house while attempting to arrest Hill on an invalid warrant.(fn31) In 1997, Hill sued Scott and other St. Paul Police Department officers, alleging wrongful arrest and excessive force; however, Hill settled his claim with the defendants on the night before the trial.(fn32)

The events of June 15, 1999, occurred within a year after the settlement.(fn33) Scott did not participate during the actual arrest of Hill because of his past history with Hill.(fn34) However, Scott's indirect participation in the events of June 15, 1999, became the basis for several of Hill's allegations.(fn35) During the incident, Officer Scott remained away from Hill and in the street.(fn36)

Shortly after Scott, Pavlak, and Pierce arrived at Hill's home to assist Rasmussen, Scott asked a dispatcher to conduct a warrant search on Hill.(fn37) The dispatcher responded, stating that there was "an outstanding misdemeanor traffic warrant on a Brian Walter Hill, born August 19, 1972, who was 5'11" and 175 pounds with green eyes, on the charge of driving with no proof of insurance."(fn38) The dispatcher did not confirm Brian Walter Hill resided at 1081 Hague, nor did the dispatcher confirm Brian Walter Hill's race as African-American.(fn39) Scott assumed the suspect was a black male, because the dispatcher did not state otherwise.(fn40) Scott, under the impression the warrant was for Hill, informed Pavlak and Pierce of an outstanding warrant for Hill.(fn41) When Pavlak and Pierce told Hill there was a warrant for him, Hill cursed at the officers, and denied having a warrant.(fn42) While in the street, Scott radioed the dispatcher again to confirm whether the arrest warrant was still active.(fn43) The dispatcher confirmed the warrant.(fn44) Subsequently, Pavlak and Pierce attempted to arrest Hill pursuant to the warrant, but Hill resisted arrest and attempted to retreat back into his residence.(fn45) Pavlak and Pierce followed Hill into his residence, where one officer grasped Hill's arm.(fn46) While in Hill's house, Hill and his sister began to fight with the officers.(fn47) The officers sprayed mace at Hill and his sister and arrested both on charges of obstructing legal process.(fn48) Pavlak and Pierce took Hill to the hospital for treatment of the mace exposure, where Scott informed them Hill had no outstanding warrants.(fn49) Pavlak and Pierce booked Hill on a charge of obstructing legal process, and initially denied Hill's request for release.(fn50) The officers ultimately released Hill without formally charging him for any offense.(fn51)

Hill filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota against the City of St. Paul and five individuals.(fn52) Hill's complaint contained four claims: "(1) Scott violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by failing to verify the information obtained from the dispatcher; (2) Pavlak and Pierce violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by not releasing Hill when they ascertained there was no warrant for him; (3) Scott, Pavlak, and Pierce committed state law torts of false arrest and Scott intentionally inflicted emotional distress on Hill; and (4) the City of St. Paul was vicariously liable for the state-law torts."(fn53) All of the defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing they were entitled to qualified immunity.(fn54)

Hill raised two specific claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.(fn55) Section 1983 prohibits a "person who, acting under color of any statute . . . subjects . . . any citizen . . . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws."(fn56) In his first count, Hill alleged his arrest was without probable cause.(fn57) Hill contended Scott knew him and "should have known that Hill was not the Brian Walter Hill named by the dispatcher."(fn58) Additionally, Hill asserted that Scott should have known the Brian Hill named in the warrant was a white male because the dispatcher informed Scott that the suspect had green eyes.(fn59)

The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding the defendants were immune from Federal claims under the doctrine of qualified immunity.(fn60) The court stated that qualified im-munity shielded officers from...