Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 08-18-2024
Case Style:
Molly Vogt v. MEnd Correctional Case, Inc., et al.
Case Number: 0:21-cv-01055
Judge: Wilhelmina M. Wright
Court: United States District Court for the District of Minnesota (Hennepin County)
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney: Branden Johnson for CO Raynor Blum
Jordan Clark Leitzke and Jessica E. Schwie for Crow Wing County
Anthony J. Novak and Bradley R. Prowant for MEnD Correctional Care, PLLC
Description:
Minneapolis, Minnesota 1983 civil rights violation lawyer represented the Plaintiff.
Joshua Vogt was arrested on January 2, 2020. According to the arresting officer's report, Mr. Vogt "behave[d] normally through the entire stop" and "did not appear to be . . . under the influence."
Arriving at the Crow Wing County Jail around midnight, Mr. Vogt was strip-searched. No drugs were found. Officers stated he was "cooperative and responsive." At some point before the search, Mr. Vogt had swallowed two bags of methamphetamine.
At 12:21 a.m., Officer Raynor Blum began booking Mr. Vogt. Observing him sweating, fidgeting, and shaking, Blum repeatedly asked if he was on drugs. Mr. Vogt denied being on drugs, explaining the symptoms as part of an anxiety episode. At 12:34 a.m., he stumbled and about ten minutes later, required assistance moving to his individual holding cell (Holding Cell 2). Vogt never asked for medical attention.
Since Blum believed that Mr. Vogt was on drugs, he reported the behavior to Sergeant Ronald J. Imgrund. Imgrund talked with Mr. Vogt, who denied he was on drugs, again blaming a panic attack. Imgrund performed breathing exercises with
3
him to help him calm down. The officers testified that once he was in his holding cell at 12:46 a.m., they performed "no fewer than eight" wellness checks.
At 1:29 a.m., Imgrund saw Mr. Vogt raising his hand. Finding him on his back shaking, the officers ordered an ambulance. Within minutes, he was no longer breathing. Officers conducted CPR. Mr. Vogt was pronounced dead at 2:20 a.m.
Footage from Camera 18-showing Mr. Vogt's (about) eight-minute stay in Group Holding and an angle of his (about) hour in Holding Cell 2-was not preserved. Mr. Vogt's daughter, Molly Vogt, sued, claiming that the officers deliberately disregarded her father's medical condition. She also alleged that the county had not disclosed all relevant footage. Finding that the county had intentionally destroyed Camera 18's footage, the magistrate judge recommended a permissive adverse-inference instruction, allowing (but not requiring) the jury to "infer that the footage from Camera 18 would have been favorable to Plaintiff." See Francis v. Franklin, 471 U.S. 307, 314 (1985) ("A permissive inference suggests to the jury a possible conclusion to be drawn . . . but does not require the jury to draw that conclusion."), modified, Boyde v. California, 494 U.S. 370, 378-79 (1990).
The officers moved for summary judgment, invoking qualified immunity. The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment, because, even with the spoliation inference, the testimony and available videos would not allow a jury to find that the officers deliberately disregarded Vogt's medical condition.
Outcome: The district court adopted all the recommendations. Vogt appeals, contending that the spoliation inference defeats summary judgment.
Affirmed
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: