Dressen v. City of Tyler, Minnesota

Background

Chad Douglas Dressen, representing himself, alleged that his home was burglarized and that $67,000 in cash and coins, jewelry, and other property were stolen. He alleged that he reported the burglary to John Spindler, Tyler’s chief of police, provided evidence, and that Spindler and the Tyler Police Department refused to investigate. Dressen also alleged that Tyler Police did not provide earlier reports and evidence to the Lincoln County Sheriff, whose later investigation was unsuccessful.

Dressen sued the City of Tyler, Minnesota, and Spindler under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against people acting under state law for violating federal rights. He alleged violations of the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments and claimed that the city had an unconstitutional policy or custom of not investigating reported crimes. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. Dressen did not respond to the motion.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that Dressen had not plausibly alleged a Fourth Amendment violation. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable government searches and seizures, but Dressen identified no search or seizure by Spindler or Tyler Police. The court also held that the Fourth Amendment does not give a private citizen the right to require police to investigate a crime committed by another person, even when probable cause exists.

The court rejected Dressen’s Fourteenth Amendment due-process claim for the same basic reason. The Due Process Clause does not create an affirmative right to government assistance, including a criminal investigation or prosecution. The court noted that police have discretion about whom to investigate and prosecute, subject to limits such as discrimination based on protected classes or other arbitrary classifications. Dressen alleged only that police failed to investigate or recover his property, not that they acted because of discriminatory or arbitrary classification.

The court separately explained that the Fifth Amendment applies to federal government action, not to local governments and officials such as the defendants. It therefore found that Dressen failed to state a Fifth Amendment claim.

Because Dressen did not adequately allege a constitutional violation, the court held that he could not establish municipal liability against the City of Tyler under § 1983. The court also stated that, even if a constitutional violation had been plausibly alleged, Dressen had not identified a specific official policy or an unofficial custom supporting the alleged violation. The opinion discussed qualified immunity, which can protect an individual official unless the official violated a clearly established federal right, but the court did not need to decide that issue after finding no plausible constitutional violation.

Disposition

Judge John R. Tunheim ordered that the defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted and that the complaint was dismissed without prejudice. The order did not state that the motion was granted in part or denied in part.