Mohamud v. Weyker

Background

Hamdi A. Mohamud and Hawo O. Ahmed brought separate but nearly identical actions against Heather Weyker, identified in the complaints as a St. Paul police officer sued in her individual capacity. They asserted that they were seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment and sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens, a case recognizing certain constitutional claims against federal officials.

The complaints alleged that, during a June 16, 2011 altercation involving Muna Abdulkadir, Abdulkadir attacked the plaintiffs and another person with a knife and damaged Ahmed’s vehicle. The plaintiffs called 911. According to the complaints, Weyker then gave Minneapolis officers false information portraying the plaintiffs as attempting to intimidate or harm Abdulkadir, who was described as a federal witness in a prostitution investigation. The complaints alleged that Weyker knowingly supplied false information to officers and included false statements in a federal criminal complaint and supporting affidavit.

The plaintiffs also alleged that Weyker omitted information that could have supported their innocence, including that they had called 911 to report being assaulted and that the on-scene investigator’s interview with Abdulkadir did not contain several allegations later attributed to the plaintiffs. Ahmed and Mohamud were arrested, held in federal custody, and indicted on federal charges involving witness tampering and obstruction of sex-trafficking enforcement. Ahmed was acquitted after a jury trial. Mohamud’s charges were dismissed, and she was subject to supervised release for a short time.

Motions to dismiss and qualified immunity

Weyker moved to dismiss both actions. She argued that the plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right and that qualified immunity protected her. Qualified immunity generally protects government officials from civil liability unless their conduct violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time.

Weyker also argued that probable cause existed independently of the information she provided, that the arrests were valid because there was probable cause for other crimes, that the federal criminal complaint was supported by probable cause, and that the plaintiffs’ failure to successfully challenge probable cause during their criminal cases barred their civil claims.

The court applied the rule governing dismissal for failure to state a claim. At that stage, it accepted well-pleaded factual allegations as true and considered whether they plausibly showed an entitlement to relief. The court excluded materials outside the pleadings that the parties had submitted with the motions.

The court explained that a warrantless arrest must be supported by probable cause and that a warrant based on deliberate falsehoods or a reckless disregard for the truth violates the Fourth Amendment. The court also noted that an affidavit can be challenged when material facts were deliberately or recklessly omitted and the affidavit, if supplemented with those facts, would not support probable cause.

Based on the allegations in the amended complaints, the court concluded that Mohamud and Ahmed plausibly alleged that Weyker violated their Fourth Amendment rights and that those rights were clearly established. The court rejected, at this stage, Weyker’s reliance on matters outside the complaints and concluded that the plaintiffs’ failure to challenge probable cause successfully during their criminal proceedings did not eliminate their claims against Weyker.

Disposition

The court concluded that Weyker was not entitled to qualified immunity at the motion-to-dismiss stage. It declined to decide whether the proper legal vehicle for the plaintiffs’ claims was § 1983 or Bivens. The court ordered that Weyker’s motions to dismiss in both cases were DENIED.

Judge Joan N. Ericksen signed the order on September 18, 2018.