ST. LOUIS — A federal judge has granted summary judgment in favor of St. Louis and two police officers in a civil lawsuit stemming from a fatal shooting during the execution of a search warrant, concluding that the evidence does not support claims of constitutional violations or wrongful conduct by law enforcement.
In an order issued by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, the court found that Det. Thomas Strode had probable cause to obtain the search warrant for Don R. Clark Jr.’s residence and Officer Nicholas Manasco’s use of deadly force was objectively reasonable under the circumstances.
The ruling dismisses all remaining claims brought by Clark’s family, including alleged violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and related state law claims.
The case arose from a Feb. 21, 2017, police operation targeting suspected drug activity.
According to court records, Strode applied for a search warrant based on information from confidential informants and surveillance indicating that Clark’s residence was involved in drug trafficking and the storage of narcotics and firearms.
A state court judge approved the warrant the same day.
Later that evening, officers executed the warrant.
After breaching the door, officers reported that Clark fired a shot at them. Manasco then fired multiple rounds, killing Clark.
Officers later recovered firearms, narcotics and related items from the residence, according to an inventory filed with the court.
Clark’s family filed suit, alleging that Strode obtained the warrant through false or reckless statements, conducted an inadequate investigation and improperly authorized a no-knock entry and use of a SWAT team.
They also alleged that Manasco used excessive force in violation of Clark’s constitutional rights.
The court rejected those claims, emphasizing that search warrants are presumed valid and that the plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence to show that Strode knowingly or recklessly included false information in his affidavit.
While family members and acquaintances stated they had not observed drug activity at Clark’s residence, the court found that such testimony did not directly contradict the information provided by informants or Strode’s surveillance observations.
The judge also concluded that even if Clark were ultimately innocent, that would not negate the existence of probable cause at the time the warrant was issued.
The court noted that probable cause requires only a “fair probability” that evidence of a crime will be found, not certainty.
On the claim of inadequate investigation, the court determined that the plaintiffs failed to meet the high standard required to show a constitutional violation.
The ruling stated that even if the investigation could have been more thorough, there was no evidence that Strode acted intentionally or recklessly in a manner that “shocks the conscience,” as required under applicable legal standards.
Regarding the use of a no-knock entry, the court found that officers had reasonable suspicion that announcing their presence could be dangerous, given the belief that firearms and drugs were present and Clark’s history of arrests, including for violent offenses.
The court noted that reasonable suspicion is a relatively low threshold and that the totality of the circumstances justified the officers’ actions.
The excessive force claim against Manasco was also dismissed.
The court determined that the evidence, including officer testimony, physical evidence from the scene and the recovery of a firearm, supported the conclusion that Clark pointed a gun at officers and fired a shot.
Under established legal precedent, the use of deadly force is considered reasonable when an armed suspect poses an immediate threat to officers.
The plaintiffs’ arguments challenging the officers’ version of events were deemed speculative and insufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact.
The court noted that, despite the inherent difficulty in cases where the decedent cannot testify, the plaintiffs must still present concrete evidence to proceed to trial.
Ultimately, the court concluded that no reasonable jury could find for Clark’s family on the record and that the defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
U.S District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri case number: 4:21-cv-00788
