ST. LOUIS, Mo. — The United States Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a ruling affirming a lower court’s denial of an appeal in the case of Michael Cunningham v. Eric Olson et al.
Cunningham was arrested by a Missouri State Highway Patrol (MSHP) trooper in 2022 for possession of a firearm as a convicted felon, even though a state court had previously expunged his only prior felony conviction in 2021.
Following his arrest, Cunningham sued the trooper and MSHP Superintendent Colonel Eric Olson, seeking damages for false arrest and prospective relief preventing the MSHP from disseminating expunged convictions in a manner that could lead to future false arrests.
Olson moved to dismiss Cunningham’s claims, but the motion was denied by the Western District Court and that decision has now been affirmed by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Cunningham was represented by Nickolas Allen, Donald Brown, and Craig Heidemann of Douglas, Haun & Heidemann, along with Joseph S. Passanise of Wampler & Passanise.
Background
The 2022 arrest followed a motor-vehicle accident in which Cunningham had been rear-ended while driving to work. A Missouri State Highway Patrol trooper at the scene noticed a handgun in Cunningham’s vehicle and requested his criminal history from dispatch.
The criminal history report listed Cunningham’s prior conviction along with a notation stating that the conviction was “Closed Pursuant to Chapter 610 RSMO.” Despite that notation, the trooper arrested Cunningham.
According to the Court of Appeals, the MSHP does not train troopers to understand that the notation indicates an expunged conviction.
When Cunningham informed the arresting officer that his conviction had been expunged, the trooper acknowledged being aware of the expungement statute and its implications but stated that she had to rely on the criminal history report.
Following the arrest, Cunningham sued Trooper Amanda Kahler, Olson, and the MSHP in Missouri state court. The defendants subsequently removed the case to federal court.
Claims Asserted by Cunningham
Cunningham asserted two claims:
-
An official-capacity claim seeking prospective relief based on the risk of future arrests.
-
An individual-capacity failure-to-train claim seeking damages for his arrest.
The District Court denied Olson’s motion to dismiss both claims. Olson appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals.
While the appeal was pending, Colonel Michael Turner replaced Olson as Superintendent of the MSHP and was substituted as the appellant for the official-capacity claim.
The Court of Appeals explained that states generally enjoy sovereign immunity from lawsuits brought by private individuals. However, when a state removes a case to federal court, it waives Eleventh Amendment immunity.
The court also discussed the Ex parte Young doctrine, which permits certain lawsuits against state officials seeking prospective relief to prevent violations of federal law.
Cunningham alleged that the MSHP’s policies regarding expunged convictions were causing unlawful arrests by using vague notations and failing to train officers to understand their meaning.
Turner argued that Ex parte Young did not apply because he lacked sufficient authority over enforcement of the relevant statutes. The Court disagreed.
Court of Appeals Outlines MSHP Responsibilities
The Court noted that Missouri law requires the MSHP Superintendent to collect, compile, and maintain information necessary for crime detection and criminal identification.
This responsibility is carried out through the central repository that compiles and disseminates criminal history records.
Although expunged convictions are generally considered confidential, Missouri law still permits certain disclosures of those records to law enforcement agencies.
The Court determined that while the Missouri Department of Public Safety may have primary authority over enforcement of the statutes, Turner retains sufficient authority because the central repository operates within the MSHP and under his command.
As a result, the Court concluded that Turner is a proper defendant under the Ex parte Young doctrine.
Court Finds Possible Fourth Amendment Violation
The Court concluded that Cunningham had adequately alleged a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.
The arresting officer observed the notation indicating the conviction had been closed and was informed by Cunningham that the conviction had been expunged. Despite that information, the officer proceeded with the arrest.
The Court stated that these allegations support a claim that Cunningham was arrested without probable cause.
The ruling emphasized that the Missouri Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that Missouri’s felon-in-possession statute does not apply to convictions that have been pardoned or expunged.
At the time of Cunningham’s arrest, Missouri law expressly provided that expungement restores an individual’s right to possess a firearm under federal law and prevents an expunged conviction from automatically disqualifying a person from obtaining a concealed-carry permit.
The Court found it illogical to restore firearm rights through expungement while simultaneously allowing arrests based on the same expunged conviction.
The legal effect of expungement was clearly established under Missouri law at the time of the arrest, and officers are expected to understand the laws they enforce to an objectively reasonable degree.
Failure-to-Train Allegations Sufficient
The Court also found that Cunningham adequately alleged deliberate indifference by MSHP leadership.
According to the complaint, the agency’s expungement-notation policy had previously resulted in arrests of other individuals whose underlying felony convictions had been expunged.
Cunningham further alleged that Olson knew troopers were violating clearly established Fourth Amendment rights because of confusing criminal history information but failed to clarify the notation or provide proper training.
The Court held that these allegations were sufficient to support a failure-to-train claim at this stage of the litigation.
As a result, the Court affirmed the District Court’s denial of Turner’s motion to dismiss based on sovereign immunity and Olson’s motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity.
Statements From Counsel
“Expungement means what it says, and when a Missouri citizen obtains an expungement, their Second Amendment rights are restored,” said Nickolas Allen. “The Eighth Circuit made that crystal clear with this ruling not only for our client but for anyone receiving an expungement in Missouri. Our work here is not done. We must now ensure the Missouri State Highway Patrol implements changes necessary to give effect to the Court’s ruling.”
Joseph S. Passanise added:
“This ruling is a landmark victory for the rule of law and the fundamental principle that a citizen’s past should not indefinitely haunt the future once the law has granted them a clean slate, restoring them to the status they had prior to the incident. By affirming that expungement carries real, enforceable weight, the Eighth Circuit has sent a clear message: law enforcement agencies cannot hide behind confusing notations or inadequate training to justify infringing upon a citizen’s constitutional rights. This sets a vital precedent that protects not only Mr. Cunningham, but every Missouri resident who has earned the right to move forward without the threat of law enforcement acting with deliberate indifference.”
About Douglas, Haun & Heidemann
Established in 1912, Douglas, Haun & Heidemann, P.C. has served the legal needs of Missouri residents for more than 110 years. With offices in Springfield and Bolivar, Missouri, the firm provides legal representation in a wide range of practice areas, including personal injury, criminal defense, and estate planning.
About Wampler & Passanise
Wampler & Passanise is a Midwest criminal defense law firm focused on high-stakes litigation at the municipal, state, and federal levels. The firm represents clients in matters ranging from federal investigations and white-collar crime to serious felony charges and DWI/DUI defense. The firm is led by Managing Partner Joseph S. Passanise along with attorneys Thomas Carver and James Hayes.
