The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Racially Discriminatory Enforcement Lawsuit Against Duluth Police Officer Can Go Forward
A black resident called the police to complain about alleged racial harassment by white neighbor; the resident alleges the police arrested him for leaving the scene after the police arrived, but didn't arrest the neighbor for doing the same thing.
From Kirk v. City of Duluth, decided last Wednesday by Judge Patrick Schiltz (D. Minn.):
Plaintiffs Aaron Kirk, who is black, and Amy Kirk, who is white, are a married couple who reside in a predominantly white neighborhood in Duluth, Minnesota. The Kirks allege that, beginning in 2007 and continuing for many years thereafter, they were subjected to a campaign of racist harassment from two of their neighbors (who lived with each other). Specifically, the neighbors repeatedly made false and unfounded complaints about the Kirks to the Duluth Police Department, subjecting the Kirks (and sometimes their children) to over 100 interactions with the police. On every occasion, the responding officers found the complaints to be unfounded.
The neighbors' complaints ran the gamut from frivolous to serious, including complaints that the Kirks' daughter was drawing on the sidewalk with chalk; that the Kirks' dog (a small Schnauzer) was aggressive and made too much noise; that the Kirks were running a methamphetamine lab; that Aaron Kirk was abusing his child; that Aaron Kirk was "slamming doors" and making noise inside his own home; and that Aaron Kirk was planning to steal roofing materials that the neighbors' contractor had left outdoors. On one occasion, one of the neighbors called Aaron Kirk "nigger" and threatened to call the Ku Klux Klan. The same neighbor twice told police that she was going to shoot the Kirks' dog.
According to the complaint, the "most recent[ ]" incident—an incident that did not involve the neighbors—occurred in July 2020. Aaron Kirk was driving on a Duluth street when defendant Dustin Turcotte cut him off. Kirk sounded his horn, and Turcotte responded by, among other things, repeatedly calling Kirk "nigger," following Kirk first to a restaurant and then to a bank, blocking Kirk's car in the restaurant parking lot, and repeatedly threatening to beat Kirk with brass knuckles.
Turcotte fled after a squad car arrived while the two were outside the bank. Kirk reported Turcotte's conduct to the responding officer, Sara Schutte, who then walked away from Kirk and began speaking to a third-party witness. Kirk left the scene, but officers later showed up at his home and arrested him for fleeing a police officer. While transporting Kirk to jail, Schutte remarked to Kirk: "I could have let you go, but you were being an asshole so I'm taking you to jail." Schutte eventually cited Kirk for disorderly conduct, obstructing the legal process, and reckless driving. Kirk remained in jail for four days; all charges were eventually dropped.
Lawsuits against the government for failing to protect people from private misconduct are very hard to win, and indeed the failure-to-protect claims were thrown out here, because plaintiffs didn't plausibly allege that the city was affirmatively involved in the neighbors' misconduct; some of the claims were also outside the statute of limitations. But plaintiffs' discriminatory prosecution claim was allowed to go forward:
[T]he Kirks allege that Schutte violated the Equal Protection Clause by discriminating against Aaron Kirk following the road-rage incident with Turcotte. Defendants argue that this claim fails because the Kirks have failed to identify a similarly situated comparator of a different race. See Mitchell v. Kirchmeier (8th Cir. 2022) ("To prove that the officers who allegedly shot him violated the Equal Protection Clause, Mitchell would need to show that they treated people who were not Native Americans but were otherwise similarly situated to him more favorably than him.").
The Court disagrees. Kirk was ostensibly arrested for fleeing a police officer. But Turcotte himself, who is white, also left the scene. As defendants point out, the complaint does not expressly allege that Turcotte was not arrested, but that is a reasonable inference from the allegations in the complaint. Defendants' motion to dismiss this claim is therefore denied….
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
It still looks like a hard case to win on the merits. If police say they didn't need to take evidence from Turcotte his departure did not obstruct justice.
IANAL!
The record doesn't seem to say that the officer told Kirk that he was being detained, didn't say 'wait here while I go talk to this guy', or whatever.
I lived in a high crime area for many years, and so got to have numerous interactions with police. In at least several of those I interacted with officers, then when it seemed to me like they had whatever they needed from me I left. I didn't ask for permission or anything, because they seemed busy doing whatever police thing they were doing. I just walked or drove off, like this person seemed to do.
This case seems to say you are subject to arrest whenever you talk to an officer then quietly leave without asking permission first. That can't be right, though, can it???
That was my reaction: The relevant question wasn't whether Turcotte had been arrested, but instead whether Kirk had been.
So much for all that nonsense at the Supreme Court about people being free to walk away from a police officer if he hasn't said, "You're under arrest."
Police could be guilty of false arrest without being guilty of racial discrimination. It would be best for the plaintiff's case if the facts compelled a conclusion that the arrested and not arrested people were similarly situated.
Two people, one black, one white both leave the scene without explicit permission from the police. The police arrest one, but not the other.
Here you have in one incident two people identically situated except for race.
You are not the droid the Volokh Conspiracy is looking for.
The charge was "obstructing the legal process" not "leaving the scene".
From the decision: "Kirk reported Turcotte’s conduct to the responding officer, Sara Schutte, who then walked away from Kirk and began speaking to a third‐party witness. Kirk left the scene, but officers later showed up at his home and arrested him for fleeing a police officer. While transporting Kirk to jail, Schutte remarked to Kirk: “I could have let you go, but you were being an asshole so I’m taking you to jail.” Schutte eventually cited Kirk for disorderly conduct, obstructing the legal process, and reckless driving."
That doesn't say what Kirk might have done after the officers came to his home, but it does seem to say the original arrest was for fleeing a police officer. I have been assuming that was leaving the scene originally, but perhaps you are suggesting he fled the officers when they showed up at his house?
Not necessarily--in this case, the victim was arrested, not the perp. It's a problem.
Yes, w/ the caveat, that one might want to confirm that police had all they wanted if one were planning to press charges against another party. It's also unclear, did the officer see Turcotte? Fleeing, sure, but it loses the racist angle for at least this instance. Or maybe for all, hell, maybe they're all shitty people, though the meth lab accusation seems to say otherwise.
Cool, can whites sue when they're prosecuted for things blacks never are? Like all of the looting and arson from the "mostly peaceful" protests of the summer of 2020?
You should test this theory.
This sounds about right. Nothing can be more pernicious than selective enforcement of the law.