Case Explained: Keith L. Carnes v. Robert Blehm Ed Begley; Vernon Huth Avery Williamson Steve Morgan; Doug Niemier; Amy McGowan; Kansas City Missouri Board of Police Commissioners; Mark Tolbert; Cathy Dean; Dawn Cramer; Quinton Lucas; Unknown Kansas City Police Department Officers Laura E. Elsbury Objector -2-

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-07

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of summary judgment for Detective Robert Blehm, Detective Avery Williamson, and Prosecutor Amy McGowan in a civil rights action brought by Keith Carnes under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court held that genuine issues of material fact precluded granting qualified immunity, prosecutorial immunity, or official immunity to the defendants regarding allegations of a reckless investigation and evidence suppression. The court applied the “shocks the conscience” standard for constitutional violations arising from an inadequate criminal investigation, requiring proof that law enforcement officers acted intentionally or recklessly. In reviewing the claims against Detectives Blehm and Williamson, the court found sufficient evidence in Carnes’s favor to suggest a reckless investigation, noting that the detectives uncritically accepted witness testimony that contradicted physical evidence, contained verified falsehoods, and ignored exculpatory leads regarding other suspects. Specifically, the record supported allegations that Detective Williamson coerced an intoxicated witness into implicating Carnes and that both detectives failed to follow up on discrepancies between witness accounts and physical evidence. Regarding Prosecutor McGowan, the court determined that she was not entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity because there is a genuine dispute of fact regarding whether her actions occurred before probable cause existed, meaning she was performing investigatory rather than advocacy functions. Consequently, she is also subject to qualified immunity analysis. The court further ruled that she was not entitled to official immunity under Missouri law because the evidence raised a factual question as to whether she acted with malice by allegedly suppressing evidence of another suspect’s guilt and coercing a witness to frame Carnes. The practical consequence of this decision is that the case proceeds to trial against the individual defendants, allowing a factfinder to determine liability for the alleged due process violations under the Fourteenth Amendment and malicious prosecution claims under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.