Michael Cunningham had a felony conviction in Missouri that was expunged in November 2021. Six months later, Trooper Amanda Kahler arrested him for possessing a firearm as a convicted felon after checking his criminal history. Although the MSHP report listed his conviction with a notation stating it was 'Closed Pursuant to Chapter 610 RSMo,' Kahler was not trained to understand that this meant the record was expunged. Cunningham sued Trooper Kahler, MSHP Superintendent Colonel Eric Olson, and the MSHP under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He sought damages for false arrest and prospective relief to stop the MSHP from disseminating expunged records in a way that caused future arrests. The district court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of immunity for both the official-capacity claim against the Superintendent and the individual-capacity claim against the trooper.
The court addressed two distinct immunity defenses. First, regarding the official-capacity claim against Superintendent Turner (who replaced Olson), the court analyzed sovereign immunity under the Ex parte Young doctrine. The court reasoned that while states generally enjoy immunity from suits for damages, they can be sued in federal court to stop ongoing violations of federal law. The court found that Turner had a sufficient connection to enforcing the relevant statutes because he commanded the MSHP, which includes the central repository responsible for disseminating criminal history records. The court rejected Turner's argument that he lacked authority, noting that the superintendent is ultimately responsible for all agency actions and has the power to direct how subordinates disseminate records. Second, regarding the individual-capacity claim against Trooper Kahler, the court analyzed qualified immunity. The court held that Cunningham sufficiently alleged a Fourth Amendment violation because the legal effect of expungement was clearly established under Missouri law, meaning the officer should have known she lacked probable cause to arrest him. Furthermore, the court found that the Superintendent's failure to train troopers to understand the expungement notation, despite knowing it led to unlawful arrests, constituted deliberate indifference, which is sufficient to state a claim for supervisory liability.
The decision allows Cunningham's lawsuit to proceed against the Superintendent in his official capacity to seek an injunction preventing the MSHP from disseminating expunged records in a manner that causes false arrests. It also clears the path for the case to proceed against the trooper and the Superintendent in their individual capacities for damages, as the court found sufficient allegations of a constitutional violation and deliberate indifference. The ruling clarifies that state officials with command over record-keeping divisions are proper defendants for prospective relief under Ex parte Young, even if they do not personally execute the dissemination. The case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings on the merits of the claims.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download