News

Appellants, the former mayor and two former city council members for the City of Greenfield, sued the City after it released their redacted personal cell phone records in response to a data practices request.  The records were released in response to a citizen’s data practice request, submitted in the wake of controversial decisions by the Greenfield City Council.  Prior to their release, the records provided were redacted by the City’s data-practices compliance official so that only phone calls potentially concerning city business would be disclosed.  Appellants then sued the City, claiming it violated the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (“MGDPA”) by disclosing the records.  Appellants moved for summary judgment, arguing the cell phone records were not government data under the MGDPA.  The district court held the cell phone records were not created or maintained by Appellants in their official capacities and therefore not government data, but left open the question of whether the records became government data under the MGDPA upon receipt or disclosure by the City.  The parties then stipulated the records became government data upon receipt by the City and brought cross-motions for summary judgment.  Appellants argued they were employees and thus their records constituted personnel data presumed private under the MGDPA.  The City argued Appellants were elected officials and the records were presumptively public government data.  The district court concluded the redacted personal cell phone records did not constitute personnel data and granted the City’s motion for summary judgment.

In a decision filed April 16, 2012, the Court of Appeals concluded these particular Appellants were solely elected officials and not employees for purposes of the MGDPA because the City did not consider them employees.  In reaching this conclusion, the Court of Appeals deferred to multiple advisory opinions promulgated by the Commissioner of Administration which state a municipality can choose whether or not to treat its elected officials as employees for purposes of the MGDPA.  The Court reasoned this approach was in accord with the fundamental purpose of the MGDPA to balance rights of data subjects to protect personal information and the right of the public to know what the government is doing.  The Court further noted public policy favored making the records in question public, stating “[e]lected officials should not be able to evade public observation and scrutiny of their work by conducting all pertinent discussions on sensitive matters in private and then simply voting on a fait accompli at the public meeting.”

Paul Reuvers and Amanda Stubson represented the City of Greenfield.

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the Order of US District Court Judge Paul Magnuson dismissing a lawsuit arising from a mass arrest near Shepard Road during the 2008 Republican National Convention in St. Paul, MN.  The Court joined the D.C. Circuit’s holding in Carr v. District of Columbia, 587 F.3d 388 (D.C. Cir. 2009) which found probable cause for a mass arrest “is satisfied if the officers have grounds to believe all arrested persons were a part of the unit observed violating the law.”  Based on the video footage, the Eighth Circuit found a reasonable officer could conclude the individuals at the intersection were acting together and that they intended to break through the police line in an attempt to access downtown St. Paul.  It was also reasonable for officers to believe, “that the group, as a whole, was committing one or more offenses under state law, including third degree riot and unlawful assembly.”  The Court found the detention of individuals in a nearby park was “reasonably necessary to achieve the purpose of the temporary seizure.”   The City of St. Paul and the defendant officers were represented by Jon K. Iverson and Susan M. Tindal.

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the defense verdict in Sandra Der v. Isanti County Deputy Sean Connolly January 25, 2012 in a published decision.  The case was tried in October 2010 before US District Court Judge Patrick Schiltz.  Plaintiff appealed the defense verdict arguing the Deputy bore the burden of proving consent to enter and exigent circumstances because a warrantless entry is presumed unreasonable.  The Eighth Circuit agreed with the majority of circuits and held conclusively a plaintiff retains the burden of proof throughout trial in a section 1983 suit.  The Deputy has only a burden of production which was satisfied by producing evidence through testimony regarding Plaintiff’s consent and the existence of a perceived emergency in the home.  The Court also agreed the emergency aid exception requires only an objectively reasonable basis someone inside the home needs immediate aid; that a PBT can be admitted to establish probable cause even though it lacks sufficient reliability to be admitted as substantive evidence; and, evidence of a subsequent unrelated event to show motive or intent is irrelevant in a section 1983 case.  Deputy Connolly was represented by Jason M. Hiveley and Andrea B. Wing.

The Honorable Steven P. Ruble issued a decision on November 15, 2011, following a bench trial, finding the City of Onamia was not responsible for an alleged unconstitutional taking of property stemming from a road improvement project.  The City had authorized a developer to improve a road, provided it stayed within the established right-of-way.  Unfortunately, the developer assumed there was a 66-foot right-of-way, when there was not.  The landowner sued only the City seeking to compel the City to condemn the area of the encroachment.  The Court found the City not liable for a taking where there was no intention to acquire the encroached upon area.  Paul D. Reuvers and Jason J. Kuboushek defended the City of Onamia.

The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen of the United States District Court issued an Order on November 17, 2011 granting a motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity for a Litchfield police officer’s use of deadly force during a response to a 911 call reporting a drunk driver.  The court analyzed the information received by the officer during the rapidly evolving circumstances including a report from a bystander the suspect was armed, the suspect’s threats to a bystander and the officer, his refusal to comply with commands, and his reach for a black object on his hip which appeared to be a holstered gun.  The court concluded the officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment when he shot the suspect because his actions were based on an objectively reasonable belief the suspect posed a threat of serious physical harm to him or bystanders.  The court also dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims against the City of Litchfield and tort claims against the officer.  Jon K. Iverson and Stephanie A. Angolkar defended the City of Litchfield and its officer.

On November 18, 2011, after a 4-day trial, a United States District Court jury determined officers from the Northwest Metro Drug Task Force did not cause unnecessary damage in violation of the Fourth Amendment during the execution of search warrants for narcotics documents and profits in former Crystal businesses “Casket Proof” and “Reality’s Fantasys Fashions.”  Stephanie A. Angolkar and Jason M. Hiveley represented the Task Force.

On August 26, 2011, after a 5-day trial, a district court jury determined the City of Owatonna was not negligent and not liable for injuries incurred by a City of Claremont firefighter when a wall collapsed on him during a June 2006 mutual aid fire in rural Steele County.  It was unfortunate a firefighter was injured, but that injury was the result of an accident and not negligence.  Jason J. Kuboushek and Susan M. Tindal represented the City of Owatonna.

The Honorable John R. Tunheim of the United States District
Court issued an Order on August 17, 2011 granting a motion for summary judgment
on the basis of qualified and official immunity by the City of Hibbing and
police officers who performed a civil standby during an automobile
repossession.  During Plaintiffs Nicholaus and Jennifer Johnson’s fourth
vehicle repossession, the officers attempted to keep the peace while the
vehicle was hooked up to a tow truck on the street.  The court concluded
the officers’ conduct did not rise to the level of state action and did not
rise to the level of any constitutional violation.  The court also
dismissed Plaintiffs’ Monell and tort claims against the City and officers.
Jason M. Hiveley, Stephanie A. Angolkar, and Jon K. Iverson defended
the City of Hibbing and the officers.