Totality Of The Circumstances Analysis

The Supreme Court issued a decision in a case we recently discussed.  Ashtian Barnes (Barnes) was stopped by Officer Roberto Felix for allegedly failing to pay toll fees.  When Officer Felix ordered Barnes to exit the vehicle Barnes tried to drive away from the police officer.  Officer Felix jumped onto the doorsill of Barnes vehicle and fired two shots into the vehicle.  Barnes died from his wounds. 

Barnes’s mother filed a suit alleging that Felix violated Barnes’s Fourth Amendment right against excessive force.  The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Officer Felix.  The District in making its determination applied the Fifth Circuit “moment of threat” analysis to determine if the force used was reasonable.  Under the “moment of threat” rule the court only considers whether the officer was in danger at the moment of the threat that resulted in the deadly force and the moments leading up the shooting are not relevant in the court’s analysis.

The Supreme Court came to a quick decision on this case.  It held that any claim that excessive force was used by a police officer during the stop or arrest requires that the force deployed be objectively reasonable from “the perspective of a reasonable officer at the scene.” When determining if the police force was objectively reasonable the court must analyze the “totality of the circumstances.”  The inquiry will require careful attention to the facts and circumstances and there is no specific time limit to be considered, and earlier facts and circumstances may bear on how a reasonable officer would have understood and responded to later circumstances.  With this decision the Supreme Court invalidated the “moment of threat” rule on the basis that the rule prevents a court from engaging in the necessary attention to the context that permeates the use of deadly force, and it conflicts with the Supreme Court’s prior decisions providing that there should be analysis of the totality of the circumstances. The court has concluded that the “moment of threat” analysis places chronological blinders on a court that may result in important factual issues being ignored.  Barnes v. Felix, (SCOTUS 23-1239, 5/15/2025)

Voter Passage Of Proposition A Survives Judicial Scrutiny

Over the last few years, the Missouri Supreme Court has developed significant experience with the subject matter of voter initiative petitions.  With each decision the court seems to reiterate that the court’s opinion is not based on the merits of the laws being passed or rejected by voters but rather the court is solely focused on the doctrine of laws that govern the procedures and whether those procedures have been properly followed.  

In this matter registered voters challenged whether the summary statement and fiscal note summary for Proposition A were so misleading that they constituted an irregularity of sufficient magnitude to cast doubt on the fairness of the election and validity of its results.  The court succinctly stated the issues to be decided in this case are limited to whether the auditor’s fiscal note summary and the secretary of state’s ballot summary statement for Proposition A were so materially inaccurate and seriously misleading that they cast doubt on the fairness of the election and the validity of its results. 

Under the analysis employed by the court a contestant must demonstrate the “irregularity casts doubt on the entire election sufficient to justify setting aside its results” to be entitled to a new election pursuant to section 115.593.  Accordingly, Contestants must establish: (1) the ballot title was unfair and insufficient pursuant to chapter 116; and (2) any alleged irregularities cast doubt on the entire election sufficient to justify setting aside its results.

For a summary statement to be sufficient and fair, it “must be adequate and state the consequences of the initiative without bias, prejudice, deception, or favoritism.” Since the summary statement is limited to 100 words it is unreasonable to conclude the summary statement will address all aspects of the proposed measure. The summary statement must give voters enough information to be aware of the proposal’s subject and purpose to allow voters to make an informed decision as to whether to investigate the initiative further.  Accordingly, a summary statement can be sufficient and fair even if the language could have been more specific and even if more specificity is preferable. The use of broad language is permitted to express a proposal’s central features and may “encompass matters not included in the measure so long as it is not deceptive, misleading, or argumentative.”  The court concluded that the summary statement was not misleading, there was no election irregularity based on the summary statement. Consequently, a new election is not warranted  McCarty v. Missouri Secretary of State, (SC100876, 4/29/2025)

A Network Of States Sue The Trump Administration

There have been two federal lawsuits filed on the basis that the Trump administration has indicated it may withhold money from transportation and disaster-relief funds if any state fails to enforce certain immigration actions as directed by the administration.  In response to the lawsuits the Trump administration has provided that the civil suits will not stop the Trump administration from restoring the rule of law and that cities that are not assisting in the immigration enforcement policies of the administration should be ineligible to receive federal funds. States Sue Trump Administration

Comment: It is very important you consider the implications this could have for your city.  There may have been a significant change in the perspective of the federal government’s role in disaster relief and transportation funding.  It is very important that when you are reviewing your emergency and disaster relief plans that you consider that there might not be readily available federal support or money for the recovery effort.  Please put together a Plan B that considers that change. 

Senate Bill 5: Relief From Permanent Injunction Denied

Even though it has been a decade since the Missouri Legislature passed Senate Bill 5 there are aspects of the law that are still being litigated.  At issue in this case are Sections 67.287 and 479.359 RSMo., which set specific rules and regulations for only cities in St. Louis County and sets a revenue cap for minor traffic violations for municipalities in the St. Louis County at 12.5 percent of total revenue while the revenue cap for the rest of the state had a 20 percent cap of total revenue. 

After the passage of Senate Bill 5 the City of Normandy and 11 other municipalities in St. Louis County brought two taxpayer actions asserting these statues violated Article III, Section 40 of the Missouri Constitution. 

The cities prevailed on their challenge in City of Normandy I when a circuit court in 2016 declared those sections unconstitutional and enjoined the state from enforcing those sections of Senate Bill 5.  The state appealed the circuit court’s decision, but the circuit court’s decision was affirmed by the Missouri Supreme Court in 2017. 

After Normandy I, the Missouri Supreme Court in another case rejected the analysis used in Normandy I in favor of a rational basis analysis which the court had historically used.  The state then subsequently requested the circuit court to reconsider and sought relief from the injunction issued in 2016 on the basis that the injunction was no longer equitable.  After the state made its request to lift the permanent injunction the circuit court determined that if the circuit court had applied a rational basis analysis in the first case the court would not have declared Sections 67.287 and 479.359.2 RSMo. unconstitutional.  The circuit court lifted the permanent injunction based on its analysis of the issue. 

The municipalities appealed the decision of the circuit court in Normandy II and the Missouri Supreme Court vacated the circuit court’s judgment on the ground that “a change in decisional law is neither necessary nor sufficient to warrant relief from judgment under Rule 74.06(b)(5).”  After vacating the circuit court judgment, the Supreme Court remanded the case to allow the circuit court to weigh the equities associated with the state’s request to lift the permanent injunction.  The circuit court concluded that that the equities did not favor lifting the injunction and overruled the state’s motion.  The state appealed that decision in Normandy II.  The Missouri Supreme Court provided that the ultimate question of whether it is inequitable to leave the injunction in effect is within the circuit court’s discretion. “A ruling constitutes an abuse of discretion when it is clearly against the logic of the circumstances before the court and is so unreasonable and arbitrary that it shocks the sense of justice and indicates a lack of careful, deliberate consideration.” The state bears the burden of showing the circuit court abused its discretion in overruling the state’s motion for relief from the permanent injunction.  The state failed to meet its burden to show the injunction should be lifted and the finality of judgments should not be casually set aside. Normandy II v Mike Keho, (SC110295, 4/15/2025)

Case Moot After Sewer Lien Paid

This is a terribly confusing case that resolves nothing, but it is a nice example of when a case is moot.

WMAC 2014 acquired a collector’s deed for the property of 131 McAlpine Drive in St. Louis, Missouri.  WMCA 2014 then conveyed the property to WMCA 2013 by special warranty deed.  Following a bench trial the circuit court in this matter issued a judgment quieting the title in favor of WMAC 2013 subject to a lien in favor of the Metropolitan Sewer District (MSD) in the amount of $76.99. 

WMAC 2013 then filed an appeal of the lien on the property arguing that the circuit court erred in concluding the title was subject to a tax lien. WMAC basis for challenging the judgment was that the circuit court misapplied the law by concluding the MSD lien survived the tax sale and the circuit court misapplied the law in failing to take judicial notice of MSD being a special improvement district who must redeem prior to foreclosing its lien under Section 140.380.2, in that MSD’s failure to first redeem renders the claim an unenforceable cloud on the property. During the pendency of the appeal WMAC 2013 paid the $76.99 and MSD subsequently requested the court find that the issue is moot.

The Eastern District did a quick analysis of when a case is moot.  Before a court can hear a matter, the court must determine if the case presents a real, substantial, presently existing controversy.  Missouri courts do not determine moot cases or render advisory opinions, and the courts will not determine speculative issues for the benefit of some other case at some other time. The Eastern District surmised that it will not decide questions of law disconnected from the granting of actual relief.  The cause of action is moot when the judgment would not have any practical effect upon the controversy at issue. 

While there may have been a controversy at issue when the appeal was filed the satisfaction of the lien is an intervening event that has rendered the controversy between WMAC and MSD moot. WMAC 2013 v. The Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District, (ED112972, 5/20/2025)

The Doughnut Shall Reign Supreme From The Mountain Tops Of America, Free Speech

A bakery in New Hampshire painted a mural on its building that showed a mountain range of pastries that included doughnuts, muffins, and a cinnamon roll behind which a bright yellow blazing sun rose, and from the rising sun rays of yellow and orange light streaked across a serene blue sky.  The mural was a feast for the eyes to behold.

After the bakery had painted the mural the town where the bakery was located determined that the mural was a sign, and the sign was violating the city zoning codes. The zoning code officer advised the bakery needed to remove or alter the signage.  The owner of the bakery advised that the mural was not a sign, but a delectable work of art created by a local high school student and any requirement that the artwork be removed is a violation of the owner’s First Amendment rights.

The owner filed a federal lawsuit.  At trial the bakery prevailed on the claim that the zoning code was infringing upon the bakery owner’s First Amendment rights.  We were unable to find the opinion, so we are speculating about the exact nature of the court’s reasoning.  Based on the news articles it appears the crux of the issue is that the mural depicted items that were being sold in the doughnut store and that constituted advertising which then subjected the mural to being regulated by the section of the city code that regulated signage. 

The problem for the city in this matter is that the city would have permitted a mural of flowers which suggest the city went beyond regulating advertising.  It was probably argued the city was regulating the “content of the speech.”  Once you start regulating content you will be subjected to a strict scrutiny analysis which is likely why the city did not prevail.  Donut Shop

Important Events

Missouri Municipal Attorney Association Summer Seminar is scheduled 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. 

IMLA Annual Conference In New Orleans October 17- October 21, 2025