Use Of Force Prior To Detention
Matthew Cartia was informed police officers were searching his parents’ home. When he learned this was taking place he drove to his parents’ house with his girlfriend Autumn Adams, walked up the driveway, and used to his cellphone to record his observations and interactions with police officers.
Officer Livingston stopped Cartia, as Cartia was approaching the house, and advised Cartia that he could not proceed any further toward the house and his conduct was interfering with a police investigation. Officer Beeman then approached Cartia and advised both Cartia and Adams to not proceed further, to stay back, and advised them not to cross a specific imaginary line in the driveway which he pointed out to them using his finger. Cartia responded by advising the officer they were being recorded and demanded their names and badge numbers. Officer Livingston then pulled out his badge and displayed it to Cartia, who then crossed the imaginary line to record the badge being displayed. Officer Beeman then advised Cartia to move back because he had crossed the imaginary line, but Cartia refused to move back to his previous position. Officer Beeman decided to arrest Cartia and began to physically detain Cartia. Adams then tried to intervene and moved toward Officer Beeman and Cartia which resulted in Officer Livingston pulling Adams away from Cartia. Cartia then began shouting at Officer Livingston which resulted Officer Beeman using a hip toss that took Cartia to the ground. The cellphone did visually capture some of the events, it did record some sound, but it did not capture the entire interaction.
The events after Cartia detention were not captured by the cellphone. Cartia alleged that after being detained on the ground he was smacked and punched in the head because he called an officer a “bitch” and when Carti was escorted to the police vehicle he was forced into the backseat and had his head slammed into the door frame and was choked by an officer. Adams was then arrested after she physically struggled with Officer Livingston. Cartia and Adams filed a suit against the officers. The trial court on summary judgment motion found the officers were entitled to immunity.
The 8th Circuit reviewed the matter and broke down the issue into several distinct fact patterns. The first issue the court considered was the prearrest use of force which the court differentiated from the alleged use of force post detention when Cartia was on the ground and escorted to the police vehicle.
When the court considered the prearrest use of force the court provided that the court will use the facts depicted in the videotape even if the videotape clearly contradicts the version of facts presented by Cartia. The court disagreed with Cartia argument which provided that the takedown was too aggressive under the circumstances. Instead, the court provided that it has previously held under similar circumstances that when a person approaches officers, asking questions, and refuses to step back, and the person refuses to place their hands behind their back the conduct in that scenario is conduct that a reasonable officer would interpret as noncompliant behavior and the level of force used did not constitute a constitutional violation. At a minimum the arresting officers did not violate a clearly established right. The bright line test for whether force is appropriate is that an officer may not forcefully take down a nonviolent and nonthreatening suspect who neither resists nor attempts to flee.
When the court considered the use of force post detention the court looked to see whether the officers’ use of force “when the defendant was subdued and restrained with handcuffs, was gratuitous and a completely unnecessary act of violence which would be unreasonable and violates the Fourth Amendment.” In prior cases the court had determined that an officer choking, kicking, or punching a defendant when the defendant is restrained, not fighting, or resisting is a clearly established violation of the right to be free from excessive force. When Cartia was restrained there existed no recording and under the facts alleged by Cartia the case law placed the officers on notice that their specific use of force was unlawful. The case was remanded. Matthew Cartia v. Beeman, (8th Fed Circuit 23-1650, 12/10/24)
Warning Slip On Windshield
Andrew Grimm parked his car in downtown Portland and paid for 1-hour and19 minutes of parking through a mobile application. Grimm left the car on the street for seven days. The City parking enforcement issued multiple parking citations and placed those citations on the car’s windshield. After the car was on the street for 5 days a parking enforcement officer added a red slip warning that the car would be towed if the vehicle was not moved. The vehicle was not moved and two days later the vehicle was towed. Grimm sued the City arguing that the procedure for notifying his car would be towed were deficient under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause.
The 9th Circuit held that the City conformed with the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment by providing notice reasonably calculated to alert Grimm of the impending tow. Grimm’s failure to remove the citations and warning slip did not provide the City with actual knowledge that its attempt to provide notice had failed. Grimm v. City of Portland, (9th Circuit 23-35235, 1/3/2025)
First Amendment Defense To Negligent Supervision Claim
The Missouri Supreme Court heard a case recently on whether a church was negligent in its supervision of a minor when the minor was sexually assaulted on two separate occasions while being transported home from a youth event in a van the church owned and operated. The alleged assailant was another youth being transported in the van. The church responded to the suit by raising an affirmative defense that it was immune from liability under the Frist Amendment and moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Church.
The Missouri Supreme Court is considering several issues including if the church properly pled the First Amendment as a defense, whether the First Amendment defense affects the circuit court’s subject matter jurisdiction over the case, whether the church sufficiently established the claim about transporting children entangles the courts in religious practice or doctrine. The issue was briefed by numerous parties arguing whether negligent supervision of children by religious entities involve neutral principles of law. Jone Doe v. First Baptist Church of Pierce City, Missouri, (SC100729, Heard 1/07/2025)
Governor Has Exclusive Authority To Fill Vacancy in St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney
Dr. Sam Page appealed the circuit court’s judgment declaring Governor Parson has the exclusive authority to fill the imminent vacancy in the Office of the St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney. The St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney was elected to the United States House of Representatives which left his current office vacant. Both the County Executive and the Governor claimed exclusive authority to appoint the replacement. The court found the Governor had sole authority to appoint the new county prosecutors under Article IV, Section 4 of the Missouri Constitution and Section 105.050 RSMo. which provides “the governor shall fill all vacancies in public offices unless otherwise provided by law, and his appointees shall serve until their successors are duly elected or appointed and qualified.” The county argued that the county had previously adopted an ordinance that provided that the vacancy in the office of the prosecuting attorney shall be filled by the County Executive subject to confirmation by the council and therefore the governor lacked the authority to fill the position. The court determined that the prosecuting attorney is charged with unfettered discretion in the enforcement of state laws on behalf of the state and that means the prosecuting attorney is performing state governmental functions and therefore the Governor shall have the authority to fill the vacancy. Missouri v. St. Louis County, (ED113210, 1/2/25)
Best Evidence Rule
Demarco King purchased a bag of Doritos and a spool of ground wire cable from Menards. Mr. King paid less than $18.54 for the items. The spool of ground wire cable was priced at $640. After Mr. King conducted his transaction Menards corporate office conducted an investigation where it determined the spool was no longer in its inventory. After conducting an investigation Menards alleged that Mr. King had swapped the bar code on the spool to pay less money for the spool of ground wire cable. As part of its investigation the corporate office provided the store manager a point-of-sale transaction report and multiple screenshots of the video feed which allegedly showed Mr. King stealing the spool. The manager testified she reviewed the entire video. The manager also testified that she requested that the corporate office preserve the video. The video was never provided to the police department or the prosecutor’s office. The defendant appealed the admission of the screenshots and testimony because the admission of the screenshots and testimony violated the best evidence rule. Mr. King was convicted of stealing and appealed the admissions.
The Best Evidence Rule requires the production of a recording where the proponent offers its contents into evidence. “If the contents of a writing or recording are not directly in issue, even though the evidence contained in the writing may bear upon a fundamental issue in the case, the Best Evidence Rule does not apply, and secondary evidence may be used without accounting for the original document.” State v. Hedges, 193 S.W.3d 784, 788 (Mo. App. E.D. 2006).
In this matter, the Best Evidence Rule applied because the contents of the video were directly in dispute as they related to whether or not Appellant switched the barcodes. The screenshots offered during testimony did not show Mr. King switching the bar codes. The manager did not have first-hand knowledge of Mr. King switching the barcodes but instead only viewed the video after-the-fact. The evidence presented was secondary evidence and the video is the only source which showed the barcodes being switched and therefore the video must be presented unless there is an exception to presenting it. The Best Evidence Rule provides that when primary evidence is unavailable, secondary evidence may be admitted in place of the original if the proponent can prove: “(1) the original is unavailable; (2) for some reason which is not the proponent’s fault, and (3) the secondary evidence is trustworthy.” The State in this matter only advised the court that the state was not in possession of the video at the time of the trial and the state presented no evidence it attempted to obtain the video. The admission of the secondary evidence was an error which prejudiced the defendant. Due to the admission of inadmissible evidence the Eastern District reversed and remanded for a new trial. Missouri v. King, (ED112260, 11/26/2024)
Evidence Presented At Trial Did Not Facially Establish Substantial Grounds For “Manifest Injustice”
Travis Sterling was stopped by Corporal J.H. for failing to use his turn signal. Sterling consented to a search of his person and Corporal J.H. located digital scales on Sterling that had “white, chalky residue.” Corporal J.H. conducted a field test which indicated the presence of methamphetamine. The scales were not sent for testing. After locating the digital scales Corporal J.H. then searched Sterling’s vehicle where he located fourteen small plastic bags of methamphetamine under the driver’s seat. The evidence under the seat was sent to the crime lab where the evidence was confirmed to be methamphetamines. Sterling was charged with second-degree trafficking, failure to signal, and failure to maintain proof of insurance. At a pre-trial hearing the defendant objected to the admission of scales due to there not being chemical lab test and it would be highly prejudicial evidence of an uncharged prior act. The court allowed in the evidence but granted the defendant a standing objection “as to the admissibility of the evidence regarding any field tests conducted on the scale and of the admission of the scale into evidence.” The defendant did not object to any foundational issue regarding Corporal J.H. testimony. On appeal the defendant argued the court abused its discretion when it permitted Corporal J.H.’s testimony because the state had failed to show the reliability of his alleged expert testimony with regard to the admission and testing of the spoon.
The Southern District found the defendant failed to raise the foundational objection at trial and the court does not review issues of inadequate foundation raised for the first time on appeal. Even if the defendant had not waived his claim the court would still decline to engage in plain error review because the record did not establish grounds for manifest injustice. In this matter the evidence related to the scales was admitted to show that Corporal J.H. conducted a field test that resulted in a positive test, not to show the substance was conclusively methamphetamine. The state did not argue, and the testimony presented did not provide that the substance was methamphetamine. The defendant was tried for having 37 grams of methamphetamines in baggies under the seat and the state introduced conclusive evidence that there was 37 grams of methamphetamines. Missouri v. Sterling, (SD38212, 09/05/2024)
Important Events
Missouri Municipal Attorney Association Summer Seminar is schedule for July 11-July 13, 2025, at Margaritaville Lake Resort in Osage Beach, Missouri. For additional information follow this link about the event. MMAA Summer Seminar
IMLA Events: IMLA has several upcoming events. I have provided links to those events below.
Virtual Code Enforcement Program February 27 – February 28, 2025
IMLA Mid-Year Seminar April 25-April 28, 2025
IMLA Annual Conference In New Orleans October 17- October 21, 2025
MMAA Newsletter 