ST. LOUIS — A federal judge has granted summary judgment in favor of St. Louis and two police officers in a lawsuit brought by the family of a man who was shot and killed during the execution of a search warrant at his home in 2017, concluding that no reasonable jury could find that the officers violated his constitutional rights.
In an order issued Feb. 13 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, the court ruled that Det. Thomas Strode and Officer Nicholas Manasco were entitled to qualified immunity on federal claims alleging unlawful search, excessive force and related constitutional violations and that Strode was shielded by official immunity under Missouri law on a wrongful death claim.
The court also dismissed municipal liability claims against the city.
The case stems from the Feb. 21, 2017, execution of a search warrant at a St. Louis home.
According to the court’s order, Strode obtained a warrant to search Don R. Clark Jr.’s residence and two other nearby addresses after confidential sources identified the block as a hub for drug trafficking.
In his affidavit, Strode stated that a confidential source identified Clark as distributing marijuana from his residence and allowing others to store narcotics and weapons there.
A confidential informant also reported observing drug distribution at the address and said firearms and narcotics had been stored there within the previous 24 hours.
Strode conducted surveillance of the block over several weeks and reported observing foot and vehicle traffic consistent with narcotics activity, including individuals entering residences briefly and leaving after five to 10 minutes.
That evening, officers breached Clark’s door while shouting “Police,” though the parties disputed whether the announcement occurred before or during the breach.
An officer deployed a flash-bang device. Multiple officers testified that they heard or felt a gunshot as they entered. According to the court’s summary of the record, Manasco entered the front room and saw Clark standing in a corner, pointing a handgun at him.
Manasco fired seven or eight shots, killing Clark.
Another officer retrieved a handgun that officers said Clark had been holding.
Two days later, Strode filed an inventory statement reporting that officers seized firearms, heroin, hydrocodone, suspected marijuana, empty capsules and ammunition from the residence.
Photographs taken after the shooting showed Clark’s body near a bed, a shell casing, a bullet hole in the front door and a bullet on the ground outside.
Clark’s family sued Strode, Manasco and the city, alleging violations of the Fourth and 14th Amendments, as well as a state-law wrongful death claim.
The court rejected those claims. On the warrant issue, the judge wrote that Clark’s family failed to present evidence that Strode knowingly or recklessly included false statements in his affidavit. The family relied on declarations from Clark’s son, landlord, in-home nurse and a neighbor stating they had not observed drug activity at the home, and on evidence that Clark had no criminal convictions.
But the court found that those assertions did not establish that Strode fabricated information or lacked probable cause, particularly in light of information from confidential sources and corroborating surveillance.
The court also held that the family could not show Strode’s investigation “shocked the conscience,” a high standard for substantive due process claims, and concluded that the Fourth Amendment governed the search and seizure claims.
The judge further ruled that even if any constitutional violation had occurred, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because the rights at issue were not clearly established in the specific circumstances confronted.
Finally, the court dismissed the wrongful death claim against Strode under Missouri’s official immunity doctrine, finding no evidence that he acted in bad faith or with malice.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri case number: 4:21-cv-00788
