Mitchell Wood v. Justin Wooten ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                  United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 19-3507
    ___________________________
    Mitchell Wood
    Plaintiff - Appellant
    v.
    Justin Wooten
    Defendant - Appellee
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Missouri - Cape Girardeau
    ____________
    Submitted: September 22, 2020
    Filed: January 28, 2021
    ____________
    Before SMITH, Chief Judge, BENTON and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    BENTON, Circuit Judge.
    Mitchell D. Wood sued officer Justin Wooten under 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     for
    unreasonable seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The district court1
    granted summary judgment to Wooten. Wood v. Wooten, 
    2019 WL 5394506
    , at *6
    1
    The Honorable Abbie Crites-Leoni, United States Magistrate Judge for the
    Eastern District of Missouri.
    (E.D. Mo. Oct. 22, 2019). Having jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    , this court
    affirms.
    In the early morning of October 23, 2016, Scott County Deputy Sheriff Toby
    Haynes pulled Wood over for driving with a broken headlight. Operating a vehicle
    with a broken headlight at night is illegal in Missouri. §§ 307.040.1, 307.105.1,
    307.020(9), RSMo 2016. Checking the records, Haynes discovered an outstanding
    warrant for an unpaid traffic ticket. Haynes called Justin Wooten, a superior, to tell
    him he had stopped Wood.
    Wooten then called the Sheriff. (At the time, Wood’s estranged wife was
    rumored to be in a romantic relationship with the Sheriff.) The Sheriff told Haynes
    to treat Wood the same as everyone else. Wooten relayed this to Haynes.
    Haynes drove Wood to the station because of the outstanding warrant. He did
    not tell Wood he was under arrest. He did not handcuff him. Wood rode in the front
    seat of the vehicle with Haynes. Arriving at the station, they met Wooten. He and
    Haynes discussed the broken headlight and the outstanding warrant. Wooten then
    handcuffed Wood. He informed Wood he was under arrest for driving while
    intoxicated.
    Wood sued Wooten for unlawful arrest. The district court granted summary
    judgment to Wooten, determining he had probable cause to arrest Wood. The court
    declined to consider qualified immunity.
    This court reviews de novo the grant of summary judgment, viewing the facts
    most favorably to the nonmoving party. Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 
    643 F.3d 1031
    , 1042 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc). This court affirms if there is “no genuine
    dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
    law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
    -2-
    The issue is whether the undisputed facts establish that Wooten had probable
    cause to arrest Wood.
    First, Wood had an outstanding warrant at the time of arrest. It is undisputed
    that the warrant was valid. A valid bench warrant provides probable cause for an
    arrest. Luckes v. Cnty. of Hennepin, 
    415 F.3d 936
    , 939 (8th Cir. 2005).
    Second, Wood was driving with a broken headlight in violation of Missouri
    law. See §§ 307.040.1, 307.105.1, 307.020(9), RSMo 2016. “An officer has
    probable cause to make a warrantless arrest when the facts and circumstances are
    sufficient to lead a reasonable person to believe that the defendant has committed or
    is committing an offense.” United States v. Torres-Lona, 
    491 F.3d 750
    , 755-56 (8th
    Cir. 2007), citing Beck v. Ohio, 
    379 U.S. 89
    , 91 (1964). A traffic violation, no
    matter how minor, gives probable cause for a traffic stop. United States v.
    Bloomfield, 
    40 F.3d 910
    , 915 (8th Cir. 1994) (en banc). Officers may arrest
    individuals for minor infractions. See United States v. Burtton, 
    599 F.3d 823
    , 829
    (8th Cir. 2010), quoting Virginia v. Moore, 
    553 U.S. 164
    , 171 (2008).
    For either reason, Wooten had probable cause to arrest Wood.
    Wood argues that Wooten lacked probable cause because he told Wood he
    was arresting him for a DWI, not the warrant or the broken headlight.
    Wood’s argument fails. First, it is undisputed that, by talking with Haynes,
    Wooten knew about the warrant and broken headlight before arresting Wood. See
    United States v. Edwards, 
    891 F.3d 708
    , 711-12 (8th Cir. 2018). An officer does
    not have to personally witness the events providing probable cause. 
    Id.
     He or she
    may rely on the “collective knowledge of all law enforcement officers involved in
    the investigation . . . if there is some degree of communication.” 
    Id.
     Wooten was
    aware of two valid grounds for Wood’s arrest.
    -3-
    Second, an officer’s wrongly-stated reason for an arrest does not nullify an
    otherwise lawful arrest. See Devenpeck v. Alford, 
    543 U.S. 146
    , 153-54 (2004),
    quoting Whren v. United States, 
    517 U.S. 806
    , 813 (1996). “[T]he validity of the
    arrest should be judged by whether the arresting officers actually had probable cause
    for the arrest, rather than by whether the officers gave the arrested person the right
    reason for the arrest.” United States v. Lester, 
    647 F.2d 869
    , 873 (8th Cir. 1981).
    An officer’s “alleged motive for the arrest cannot vitiate an otherwise lawful arrest.”
    Peterson v. Kopp, 
    754 F.3d 594
    , 599 (8th Cir. 2014), citing Whren, 
    517 U.S. at 813
    .
    Regardless of the officer’s stated reasons, an outstanding warrant can justify an
    arrest. See Rodgers v. Knight, 
    781 F.3d 932
    , 939 (8th Cir. 2015) (holding that where
    officers seized the defendant for a firearms violation despite a valid conceal-and-
    carry, the defendant’s outstanding warrant for failure-to-appear-in-court justified the
    seizure).
    As a result, although Wooten told Wood he was under arrest for a DWI, he
    had probable cause based on the outstanding warrant or the broken headlight.
    Wood also alleges that after the fact, Wooten fabricated evidence about the
    arrest (and then invoked his Fifth Amendment right about it). This later conduct
    does not negate Wooten’s probable cause at the time of the arrest. See Bowden v.
    Meinberg, 
    807 F.3d 877
    , 881-82 (8th Cir. 2015). Excluding the allegedly fabricated
    evidence, Wooten had probable cause based on the outstanding warrant or the
    broken headlight. See 
    id.
    The district court correctly granted summary judgment to Wooten.
    *******
    The judgment is affirmed.
    ____________________________
    -4-