Markham v. Officer Kelgar1 #131309

Background

Oji K. Markham filed an amended complaint asserting Fourth Amendment claims against Officer Kelgar1 #131309, Lt. Klien2 #119943, and Chief Jason Ohotto in their individual capacities. The report explains that the defendants’ filings identified Officer Kelgar1 as Caleb Koecher and Lt. Klien2 as Klein, and the court used those names in its analysis.

Markham alleged that, on August 2, 2025, Officer Koecher unlawfully seized and ran his identification after approaching him about a moped parked in a public park. Markham alleged that the officer threatened to tow the moped, demanded identification under threat of arrest, and lacked reasonable suspicion. Markham sought $2 million in damages. He also alleged that Lt. Klein and Chief Ohotto violated his rights by refusing to prepare an incident report after he submitted a police-conduct complaint about the encounter.

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that Markham had not plausibly alleged a constitutional violation. They argued that the video showed Markham voluntarily provided his identification, that the officer had grounds to investigate a possible park-ordinance violation, and that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity.

Analysis

For Officer Koecher, the court considered whether the alleged encounter violated the Fourth Amendment and whether qualified immunity applied. The court treated the identification request as required rather than consensual because the officer said he would tow the moped if Markham did not provide identification.

The court concluded that the moped’s presence in the park gave Officer Koecher reasonable suspicion—and, in the court’s view, probable cause—to believe that a Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board ordinance was being violated. The ordinance barred vehicles from certain park areas, and its definition of “vehicle” included devices capable of transporting a person without human power. The court rejected Markham’s argument that the moped’s engine size removed the basis for suspicion. It also concluded that asking for identification was reasonably related to investigating the vehicle and determining whether Markham could lawfully drive it.

The court alternatively concluded that Officer Koecher was entitled to qualified immunity. Qualified immunity is a defense to civil damages when an official did not violate a constitutional right or the right was not clearly established under sufficiently similar precedent. The court stated that Markham had not cited, and the court could not locate, an Eighth Circuit case holding that approaching a person next to a vehicle illegally parked in a park and requesting identification after the person claimed ownership violated the Fourth Amendment.

As to Lt. Klein and Chief Ohotto, the court held that Markham had no constitutional right to require officers to investigate his complaint or prepare a police report. The court also found that Markham’s allegations of evidence tampering were conclusory and did not allege a deprivation of life, liberty, or property. The court therefore concluded that these defendants were entitled to qualified immunity as well.

Disposition

The report and recommendation recommends that defendants’ Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED and that the Amended Complaint be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Because this document is a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation rather than a final district court order or judgment, it was not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit. The notice stated that a party could file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with the recommendation.