Haynes v. Minnehan

14 F.4th 830

Dejuan HAYNES Plaintiff - Appellant

v.Brian MINNEHAN, Individually and in his official capacity as a law enforcement officer for the Des Moines, Iowa Police Department; Ryan Steinkamp, Individually and in his official capacity as a law enforcement officer for the Des Moines, Iowa Police Department; Dana Wingert, individually and in his official capacity as Chief of Police for the Des Moines, Iowa Police Department; City of Des Moines, Iowa Defendants - Appellees

No. 20-1777

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: May 14, 2021

Filed: September 21, 2021

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied November 16, 2021

Gina Messamer, Parrish & Kruidenier, Des Moines, IA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

John O. Haraldson, City Attorney's Office, Legal Department, Des Moines, IA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before SMITH, Chief Judge, SHEPHERD and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.

GRASZ, Circuit Judge.

On a well-lit summer evening in a Des Moines neighborhood with community-reported drug crimes, police officers Brian Minnehan and Ryan Steinkamp lawfully stopped Dejuan Haynes for suspected (yet mistaken) involvement in a drug deal. Beyond that suspicion, the exceedingly polite and cooperative exchange between the three did not make either officer view Haynes as a safety risk. But when Haynes could not find his driver's license (yet shared three separate cards bearing his name), Steinkamp handcuffed him. While the polite interaction continued, the cuffs stayed on. They also stayed on after a clean frisk and a consensual pocket search. They even stayed on after the officers turned down more searches (another pocket and Haynes's car) and another squad car's offer to help. Haynes appeals the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment on his Fourth Amendment claims against the officers, the City, and Police Chief Dana Wingert, see 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We reverse.

I. Introduction

The Police Department tapped officers Minnehan, Steinkamp, and Ryan Garrett for the Summer Enforcement Team, "a proactive policing initiative meant to reduce criminal activity in the areas of the City" with criminal-activity reports, "either by arrest or by public request[ ]." Summer-Enforcement-Team officers would focus on "suspicious interactions that could involve illegal drugs."

After receiving community complaints about drug activity and other crimes, the Summer Enforcement Team sent the three officers to the neighborhood where Haynes attended church. Dressed in plainclothes in an unmarked van, Garrett kept lookout while Minnehan and Steinkamp patrolled in a cruiser. If Garrett suspected criminal activity, he would tell Minnehan and Steinkamp. Then, they would follow up on leads.

From the van, Garrett saw a Volkswagen Phaeton sedan driving south. It looked "expensive and unique."

Garrett saw a person on the sidewalk approach the Volkswagen's passenger's side window. The officer saw a ten-to-fifteen second meeting that involved "an exchange of something between them." Given his experience, his training, his observations, the meeting's length, and "the nature of crime reported in the neighborhood[,] ... Garrett suspected that this interaction may have been an illegal drug transaction."

And so, Garrett trailed the car. He then told Steinkamp and Minnehan that he suspected a hand-to-hand drug deal.

While still light outside, Steinkamp and Minnehan followed the car. When the car stopped at a stop sign, the officers activated their lights. The officers did not radio the stop to dispatch.

Bodycam and dashcam videos captured what happened next. After stopping his car, Haynes turned his head toward the officers and stuck his palms outside the driver's side window to show that his hands were empty. Approaching the car from the back, Steinkamp headed to the driver's side and Minnehan to the passenger's side. Steinkamp asked, "What were you doing?" Haynes explained that he had just given some change away.

Minnehan stated, "You got a cracked windshield, man." Haynes explained that he had not repaired the windshield because the car's Bentley parts would make the repairs costly ($2,500).¹

When Steinkamp asked for identification, Haynes asked for permission to look for it. But Haynes could not locate his license. So, he gave Steinkamp a Visa credit card and a Costco card. Both cards bore his name. And the Costco card showed his photograph. Steinkamp jotted down Haynes's Social Security number, his birthdate, and his address.

Haynes also handed his insurance card to Minnehan. That card correctly listed Haynes's name.

Aside from the suspected drug deal, the officers would later testify that nothing about Haynes's behavior led them to see him as a safety risk or uncooperative. Both officers looked into the car. Neither saw anything drug-related nor smelled marijuana. And neither saw weapons.

Steinkamp's training taught him "to look for suspicious mannerisms, like heavy breathing, sweating, and fluctuation in [the] carotid artery." He saw none in Haynes. Instead, Haynes's cooperativeness led Steinkamp to immediately realize that this "was ‘gonna be a pretty quick stop[.]’ " And Minnehan characterized Haynes as "extremely cooperative," "very relaxed," polite, and pleasant. But because Haynes did not have his license, Steinkamp asked him to exit his car.

When Haynes complied, Steinkamp stated, "I'm going to detain you right now because I don't know who you are." Steinkamp then handcuffed Haynes. Both officers would later testify that if a driver lacked identification during a traffic stop, as a "standard practice," the officers would handcuff the driver.

Their supervisor, Sargent Jeffrey Robinson, testified that "typically" an officer would handcuff an individual during every Terry frisk. See Terry v. Ohio , 392 U.S. 1, 19–21, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968).

Minnehan, meanwhile, asked Haynes if he had anything illegal on him or in the car. Haynes said that he did not. Minnehan told Haynes that the handcuffing stemmed from his missing license and his presence in a high-crime area. Haynes remarked, "The car and me being over here don't match." Minnehan responded that "it's a nice car for the area."

Then Steinkamp began a pat down while asking again if Haynes had anything [illegal] on him. When Steinkamp asked to do a pocket check, Haynes consented. Steinkamp checked Haynes's left and righthand jeans pockets, patted down the area between his legs, and the front of his pants. During the frisk, Minnehan offered another explanation for the handcuffing and frisking: that he had seen "probably 75 hand-to-hand sales of crack at the same spot."

Steinkamp asked if Haynes had another pair of pants underneath his jeans. In his affirmative response, Haynes offered to let Steinkamp "undo [the] belt and check the pockets[.]" Steinkamp did so.

Steinkamp did not find any drugs. He did not find any weapons, either.²

As Steinkamp faced away from Haynes and headed back to the cruiser, Haynes told the officers about an inside pocket and gave them consent to check it. Neither did so. Steinkamp later testified that he chose not to search that pocket because he "had no reason to believe there was more evidence at that time."

With Steinkamp back at the cruiser, Minnehan watched over Haynes, who stood in the road in full public view in handcuffs with his belt unbuckled and his pants unzipped. Minnehan again asked if Haynes had anything illegal in the car. As Haynes said that he did not, he invited Minnehan to search the car. Minnehan declined.

Steinkamp returned to reconfirm Haynes's birthdate, name, and Social Security number before heading back to the cruiser again.

A few seconds later, another police car slowed down behind Minnehan. Minnehan said, "We're all good man. Thanks." That police car drove off.

Over two minutes later, Steinkamp returned and stated, "We're good." Then Minnehan finally removed the handcuffs. From the time the pat down ended until Haynes was uncuffed was nearly five minutes.

The officers later said that Haynes correctly identified himself, his address, and his Social Security number. And later, Garrett verified Haynes's explanation (stopping to give a person change).

This lawsuit, alleging federal and state constitutional violations, followed.³ The officers, the City, and Wingert moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. The district court granted that motion. It reasoned that Haynes had no clearly established right to be free of handcuffs post-frisk. And it concluded that the record did not show a longer-than-necessary stop. It dismissed Haynes's Monell claims for failure to train and supervise as "without merit" given its conclusions on the alleged constitutional violations. See Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. , 436 U.S. 658, 691, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978).

II. Discussion

We review grants of qualified immunity de novo, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Haynes. Smith v. City of Brooklyn Park , 757 F.3d 765, 772 (8th Cir. 2014). To determine if the officers should receive qualified immunity, we examine if: (1) the facts, viewed in the light most favorable to Haynes, show that the officers deprived him of a constitutional or statutory right; and (2) that right was clearly established when the alleged deprivation occurred. See Wright v. United States , 813 F.3d 689, 695 (8th Cir. 2015).

The Fourth Amendment bars "unreasonable ... seizures." U.S. Const. amend. IV. "A seizure occurs ‘if, in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave.’ " United States v. Warren , 984 F.3d 1301, 1303 (8th Cir. 2021) (quoting INS v. Delgado , 466 U.S. 210, 215, 104 S.Ct. 1758, 80 L.Ed.2d 247 (1984) ).

An officer can "conduct a brief, investigatory stop"—what we call a " Terry stop"—"when the officer has a reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot." Illinois v. Wardlow , 528 U.S. 119, 123, 120 S.Ct. 673, 145 L.Ed.2d 570 (2000) (quoting Terry , 392...