Officers Receive Qualified Immunity From 1983 Claim Regarding Extension of Warrant For Vehicle To Include Search For Keys
A warrant authorizing a search of property and the seizure of a vehicle implicitly included a search of the property for police to seize the vehicle’s keys, the Eighth Circuit recently held.
Richard Thiel sued a sheriff and two deputies in federal district court, alleging they violated his constitutional rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.
The principal encounter at issue occurred after Pike County, Missouri Deputy Joseph Minor received word that a stolen vehicle was on Thiel’s property. Minor and Deputy Josh Baker investigated by going onto a neighboring property and, from there, onto Thiel’s property. After locating the vehicle in question, Minor swore out an affidavit used to obtain a warrant authorizing a search of Thiel’s property and seizure of the stolen vehicle.
The deputies executed the warrant and had the vehicle towed. But, unable to immediately locate the vehicle’s keys, the deputies expanded their search to include private areas of Thiel’s home, including into Thiel’s undergarment drawer. The deputies eventually found a key and a fob that they suspected belonged to the stolen vehicle. Thiel was never charged with any crimes as a result of this incident.
Thiel then sued the sheriff and two deputies in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on multiple grounds. Thiel then appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which reviewed the district court’s decision de novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Thiel.
On appeal, Thiel argued the two deputies exceeded the scope of the first warrant when they continued searching his property for vehicle keys. He argued they were aimlessly rummaging in bad faith to harass him. The Eight Circuit disagreed, holding the deputies were entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct did not violate clearly established law.
Relying on its own precedent, the Eighth Circuit held that items not mentioned in a warrant may be seized so long as they are reasonably related to the crime for which the warrant issued. They then held that a reasonable officer could believe the location of the keys was related to the suspected vehicle theft because it could provide enough evidence that Thiel himself placed the car on his property, rather the someone else. The court then disposed of Thiel’s assertion the officers acted in bad faith by citing U.S. Supreme Court precedent the relevant test is an objective “reasonable officer” analysis, to which subjective intentions do not apply.
The Eighth Circuit then dispensed with Thiel’s other claims and affirmed the district court’s grant of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
Review the full Eighth Circuit opinion in Thiel v. Korte, et al.
This case law update was written by James P. Garay Heelan, Associate Attorney, Shaw Bransford & Roth, PC.
For thirty years, Shaw Bransford & Roth P.C. has provided superior representation on a wide range of federal employment law issues, from representing federal employees nationwide in administrative investigations, disciplinary and performance actions, and Bivens lawsuits, to handling security clearance adjudications and employment discrimination cases.