Raymond Thompson v. Joshua Cockrell and Robert Gerholdt

St. Louis, Missouri personal injury lawyer represented the Plaintiff who sued on a 42 U.S.C. 1983 civil rights violation theory.



On March 30, 2020, Thompson purchased a 100-year anniversary edition

custom 2003 Harley Davidson trike motorcycle ("motorcycle”) from Nathan Rench

for $5,000. Thompson paid off the two lienholders and gave Rench the remainder.

The parties signed the certificate of title issued on February 21, 2020. After selling

the motorcycle to Thompson, Rench applied for a duplicate title with the Missouri

Department of Revenue (the "State”), falsely claiming the title had been lost. The

issuance of a duplicate title resulted in Thompson being unable to register the

motorcycle with the State until he could prove he had clear title.



On October 22, 2022, at 11:16 p.m., Officers Cockrell and Gerholdt were

dispatched to Thompson's residence on a "keeping the peace” call. When they

arrived at Thompson's residence, they encountered Amara Elmore and her husband

Steven Mackenzie. Elmore informed the officers that she was Rench's daughter,

which was later determined to be false. She told the officers they were helping

Rench recover the motorcycle in Thompson's backyard, which, according to

Elmore, Thompson had borrowed and never returned. Elmore told the officers that

Rench was unable to assist in the retrieval because he had been in a motorcycle

accident and needed a motorized scooter to get around.



Thompson's property consists of a single-family home with a paved driveway

that extends into the backyard. The property is fenced with a gate separating the

front and back portion of the driveway. Although Thompson insists that the gate

was closed when he left his house on October 22, Elmore told the officers that the

gate was open when she got there. The motorcycle was parked within the fenced

area of Thompson's property, but not in a garage, outbuilding, or otherwise covered

or concealed. The district court found that with the gate closed, it would have been

difficult to see the motorcycle from the street.



Elmore showed the officers a picture of a title issued on March 9, 2021,2

listing Rench as the owner. Officer Gerholdt knocked on Thompson's front door

several times and rang the doorbell. No one answered. The officers then walked to

the backyard where Officer Gerholdt viewed the motorcycle's VIN on the right front

fork assembly, verified it matched the picture provided by Elmore, and ran it through

a computerized database, which indicated Rench was the registered owner.

Officer Gerholdt then contacted the on-duty supervisor for his opinion on how

to handle the situation. He relayed to his supervisor that there was a motorcycle in

Thompson's backyard titled in Rench's name, the VIN came back registered to

Rench, and the people wanting to take possession of the motorcycle had the key.

The supervisor opined that the motorcycle could be released. Mackenzie then started

the motorcycle, maneuvered it through the gate and around a vehicle parked in the

driveway, and drove away. Elmore got in her vehicle and drove away.



The next day, at 2:18 p.m., the officers were called back to Thompson's home

on a report of a stolen motorcycle. Thompson produced evidence memorializing the

sale to him, including the certificate of title that had been signed by Rench, a copy

of the checks he wrote to buy the motorcycle, a bill of sale from the State, and various

legal documents showing he was involved in a lawsuit with Rench over ownership

of the motorcycle. Thompson told the officers that he wanted Rench prosecuted for

stealing his motorcycle.



On November 1, 2022, after obtaining information from a neighbor about

Rench's whereabouts, law enforcement located Rench at a gas station as he was

putting fuel in his John Deere lawn mower. Rench was arrested for stealing a motor

vehicle, booked, and released pending warrant applications. Rench declined to

provide any information about the motorcycle's whereabouts.



Thompson filed this action on February 6, 2023, alleging law enforcement

engaged in an unlawful search and seizure of his property in violation of the Fourth

Amendment and the officers violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights.

Days later, on February 12, 2023, Officer Gerholdt was notified by the Owensville

Police Department that Thompson's motorcycle had been located. The motorcycle

had been towed after Rench was arrested for driving with a suspended license.

Thompson was notified of the motorcycle's location and the process to recover it.

In January 2024, Thompson moved for sanctions for the failure to preserve

electronically stored evidence. Officer Gerholdt activated his body camera (which

would correspondingly activate his dash camera) while he was at Thompson's

residence on October 22, 2022. His body camera was also activated and recording

when he returned to Thompson's property the next day. Upon completion of the

calls, Officer Gerholdt tagged his body camera footage as "miscellaneous.” When

his shift was over, Officer Gerholdt placed his body camera into a docking station at

the police station, which automatically uploads recordings onto a server. The dash

camera footage automatically uploads when a patrol vehicle returns to the station.-5-

While the Manchester Police Department subsequently opened a theft

investigation, this occurred after the recordings had been uploaded. When the police

chief, who handles preservation requests for the Manchester Police Department, saw

the request for preservation of evidence pertained to theft of a motor vehicle—a

felony—he assumed the recordings would be maintained for at least three years

before they were at risk of being automatically purged. Because Officer Gerholdt

tagged his body camera footage as "miscellaneous” due to the civil peacekeeping

nature of the initial call, the recordings were purged by the automatic retention

settings after 30 days. It was after this lawsuit was filed that the Manchester Police

Department discovered the recordings had been automatically purged.



* * *



"At the very core of the Fourth Amendment stands the right of a man to retreat

into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.”

Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 31 (2001) (cleaned up). Thompson contends

the officers violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable

searches when they entered the curtilage of his home without a warrant. Curtilage

consists of "the area immediately surrounding and associated with the home” and is

considered part of the home itself for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. Luer v.

Clinton, 987 F.3d 1160, 1165 (8th Cir. 2021) (quoting Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S.

1, 6 (2013)). The officers do not challenge the district court's finding that the area

where the motorcycle was parked falls within the curtilage of Thompson's home.



* * *



To warrant the denial of qualified immunity, Thompson must show the law at

the time was sufficiently clear to put every reasonable officer on notice that what he

was doing violated that right. See Carter, 139 F.4th at 989-90. Notably, Caniglia

did not abrogate all warrantless entries onto one's property. Rather, the Court

expressly reiterated that "the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit all unwelcome

intrusions on private property—only unreasonable ones.” 593 U.S. at 198 (cleaned

up). Further, Justice Alito noted in his concurring opinion, "it does not follow that

all searches and seizures conducted for non-law-enforcement purposes must be

analyzed under precisely the same Fourth Amendment rules developed in criminal

cases.” Id. at 200-01. Contrary to Thompson's arguments, Caniglia did not plainly

redefine the limits of all law enforcement conduct when responding to non-criminal

matters occurring within a home's curtilage. Given this Court's precedent and

accepting the facts in a light most favorable to Thompson, he has not shown the

officers' entry into his backyard violated a clearly established right.

Summary judgment in favor of the Defendants.



Affirmed