Roderick Talley v. City of Little Rock

Eighth Circuit

Roderick Talley v. City of Little Rock

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 26, 2023

Docket21-2806

StatusUnpublished

This text of Roderick Talley v. City of Little Rock (Roderick Talley v. City of Little Rock) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Roderick Talley v. City of Little Rock, (8th Cir. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 21-2806 ___________________________

Roderick G. Talley

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

City of Little Rock, a municipality; Kenton Buckner, individually, et al.

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central ____________

Submitted: January 23, 2023 Filed: January 26, 2023 [Unpublished] ____________

Before LOKEN, BENTON, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Roderick Talley appeals the district court’s1 grant of summary judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that Little Rock police officers

1 The Honorable James M. Moody, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. violated his constitutional rights in searching his apartment pursuant to an invalid no- knock search warrant and the City is liable for this unconstitutional conduct.

Upon careful review, we agree with the district court that, even without false statements in the warrant affidavit regarding what the officers personally observed during an informant’s controlled drug buy, the affidavit provided sufficient probable cause that drugs would be found in Talley’s residence based on what the informant told the officers and other information the officers received that Talley was involved in drug activity on the premises. Nor did the officers rely on a no-knock warrant that “was based on an affidavit so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable.” Kiesling v. Holladay, 859 F.3d 529, 533 (8th Cir. 2017) (quotation omitted). Because we conclude there was no underlying constitutional violation, the City cannot be liable. See Furlow v. Belmar, 52 F.4th 393, 406 (8th Cir. 2022).

Accordingly, we affirm. ______________________________

-2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 21-2806 ___________________________

Roderick G. Talley

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

City of Little Rock, a municipality; Kenton Buckner, individually, et al.

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central ____________

Submitted: January 23, 2023 Filed: January 26, 2023 [Unpublished] ____________

Before LOKEN, BENTON, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Roderick Talley appeals the district court’s1 grant of summary judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that Little Rock police officers

1 The Honorable James M. Moody, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. violated his constitutional rights in searching his apartment pursuant to an invalid no- knock search warrant and the City is liable for this unconstitutional conduct.

Upon careful review, we agree with the district court that, even without false statements in the warrant affidavit regarding what the officers personally observed during an informant’s controlled drug buy, the affidavit provided sufficient probable cause that drugs would be found in Talley’s residence based on what the informant told the officers and other information the officers received that Talley was involved in drug activity on the premises. Nor did the officers rely on a no-knock warrant that “was based on an affidavit so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable.” Kiesling v. Holladay, 859 F.3d 529, 533 (8th Cir. 2017) (quotation omitted). Because we conclude there was no underlying constitutional violation, the City cannot be liable. See Furlow v. Belmar, 52 F.4th 393, 406 (8th Cir. 2022).

Accordingly, we affirm. ______________________________

-2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Roderick Talley v. City of Little Rock, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roderick-talley-v-city-of-little-rock-ca8-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack