Perryman v. Bloomington

Background

Kylese Perryman alleged that Hennepin County analysts identified him as a suspect in connected robberies involving a stolen vehicle, a robbery at the Mall of America parking ramp, and the use of stolen cards at Walmart. The complaint alleged that county personnel used, or relied on, facial-recognition technology even though the county’s training manual said the technology was for investigative purposes and could not be used to positively identify someone. The complaint also alleged that Perryman differed from the suspect in ways including tattoos, height, and weight.

Hennepin County provided Perryman’s identifying information and booking photograph to Bloomington Detective Andrew Risdall. A KOPS alert stated that Perryman was known to be armed and had struck a victim with a gun. After a state trooper stopped Perryman for expired vehicle tabs, he was taken to Bloomington police, where Detective Risdall arrested him for robbery. Hennepin County filed charges, which were not dropped until 52 days after the arrest, according to the complaint.

Claims and legal standards

The ruling addressed only Perryman’s claims against Hennepin County. He brought three claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983: false arrest, failure to train, and civil conspiracy. Section 1983 allows a person to seek relief for violations of federal rights caused by a state or local government actor. Because Hennepin County is a municipality, the court applied the rule that a municipality is liable only when its own policy, custom, deliberately indifferent failure to train, or final policymaker’s action caused the alleged violation; it is not automatically liable for employees’ conduct.

Perryman also brought a false-arrest claim under Minnesota law and a claim under Article I, Section 10 of the Minnesota Constitution. Hennepin County asked the court to dismiss the claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim.

Federal civil-rights claims

The court dismissed Perryman’s § 1983 claims. It held that Perryman did not plausibly allege an unconstitutional official policy because the county’s written policy prohibited the alleged conduct. The court also held that one alleged incident was not enough to establish an unconstitutional unofficial custom.

The court rejected the failure-to-train claim because the complaint alleged only one incident and did not show that Hennepin County knew its training was deficient. The court noted that the county’s training manual provided specific directions and prohibited using facial-recognition technology to positively identify a person.

The court also dismissed the § 1983 civil-conspiracy claim. Perryman relied on the conduct of county employees, but he did not allege that Hennepin County itself participated through a policy, custom, or action by a person with final policymaking authority. The court stated that municipal liability rules apply to § 1983 conspiracy claims as well.

Minnesota false-arrest claim

The court denied Hennepin County’s motion to dismiss Perryman’s Minnesota false-arrest claim. Although Detective Risdall ordered the arrest, the complaint presented conflicting accounts about who identified Perryman as the robbery suspect. The court found it plausible, at the motion-to-dismiss stage, that Hennepin County identified Perryman and thereby instigated or proximately caused his arrest.

The court also rejected Hennepin County’s argument that official immunity required dismissal at this stage. Minnesota official immunity can protect public officials performing discretionary duties, but the court concluded that the alleged use of facial-recognition technology to positively identify Perryman would violate the county’s specific policy and therefore could be a ministerial, rather than discretionary, act. The court left open whether later discovery could show that analysts independently verified the match or did not use facial-recognition software; it reserved that issue for a later stage.

Minnesota Constitution claim and amendment request

The court dismissed Perryman’s claim under Article I, Section 10 of the Minnesota Constitution. It explained that Minnesota has not recognized a private remedy for violations of the state constitution and that Perryman had not shown a federal case allowing injunctive relief based solely on that provision in circumstances like these.

The court denied Perryman’s request to amend because he had not adequately shown how an amended complaint could save the claims. The court dismissed with prejudice Perryman’s § 1983 claims in Counts I, III, and IV and his Minnesota Constitution claim in Count VIII. It granted in part and denied in part Hennepin County’s motion to dismiss: the motion was granted as to those claims and denied as to Perryman’s Minnesota false-arrest claim in Count VI.