Thompson v. Cockrell, 2025 WL 2657074 (8th Cir. 2025)
Officers Joshua Cockrell and Robert Gerholdt of the Manchester (Missouri) Police Department were deceived into unwittingly facilitating the theft of Raymond Thompson’s 100th Anniversary Harley Davidson motorcycle from his backyard.
Thompson bought the motorcycle from Nathan Rench, who signed the certificate of title over to Thompson in February 2020. Rench then applied for a duplicate title from the tax commission, falsely claiming the title had been lost. Once Rench obtained the duplicate title, Thompson was unable to register the motorcycle until he could prove he had clear title.
Two years after the sale, while Thompson and Rench were involved in litigation over Rench’s trickery, Officers Cockrell and Gerholdt were dispatched to Thompson’s residence on a “keep the peace” call. The officers found Amara Elmore and her husband Steven Mackenzie waiting at Thompson’s house. Elmore lied to the officers, claiming she was Rench’s daughter. She said she and Mackenzie were helping Rench recover the motorcycle, claiming Thompson had borrowed it and failed to return it. Elmore said Rench was injured and needed a motorized scooter to get around.
The officers accompanied Elmore to a gate separating the front and back portion of the driveway. Elmore told the officers the gate was open when she got there. The motorcycle was parked within the fenced area, but not in a garage, outbuilding, or otherwise covered or concealed. Elmore had a key for the motorcycle.
Elmore showed the officers a picture of a title issued on March 9, 2021, listing Rench as the owner. The officers knocked on Thompson’s front door several times and also rang the doorbell. No one answered. They walked through the gate to the backyard and examined the VIN on the right front fork assembly. The VIN matched the number shown on the picture provided by Elmore. The officers verified the state database listed Rench as the registered owner. After conferring with a supervisor, the officers allowed Mackenzie to ride the motorcycle away.
The next day, the officers returned to Thompson’s residence, this time in response to his report that the motorcycle had been stolen. Thompson showed the officers documentation of the sale by Rench to him, the certificate of title signed by Rench, copies of the checks he wrote to buy the motorcycle, a bill of sale from the State, and various legal documents showing he was involved in a lawsuit with Rench over ownership of the motorcycle.
Officer Gerholdt called Elmore and told her to return the motorcycle. Shortly after that, Rench called Officer Gerholdt and said he was refusing to return the bike and nothing would change his mind. A few days later, the officers located Rench at a gas station and arrested him. Again, Rench refused to tell the officers where the motorcycle was located. The officers subsequently learned the motorcycle had been impounded by another department when Rench was stopped while riding it without a license.
Thompson sued the officers, alleging unlawful search and seizure for entering his property and allowing the removal of his motorcycle. The trial court granted summary judgment for the officers and Thompson appealed.
Thompson argued the officers violated his Fourth Amendment rights by entering the curtilage of his property without a warrant. Curtilage is “the area into which extends the intimate activity associated with the sanctity of a man’s home and the privacies of life” (Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (1984)). The scope of the curtilage is determined by considering the proximity to the home, whether it is fenced or otherwise enclosed, the nature of the use of the area, and the efforts the resident takes to screen the area from public view (United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987)).
The officers agreed they entered onto Thompson’s curtilage, but argued their entry was reasonable. The Supreme Court has held: “the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit all unwelcome intrusions on ‘private property’ … — only unreasonable ones” (Caniglia v. Strom, 593 U.S. 194 (2021)). The appellate court agreed the officers’ intrusion on the curtilage was both limited and reasonable. The court noted the officers’ efforts to knock on the door as well as the fact that they did not enter any outbuildings or move anything to look at the VIN on the fork.
The court pointed out the officers did not take control or custody of Thompson’s motorcycle. The officers’ presence at the scene of the repossession — albeit a deceptive repossession — did not equate to the officers engaging in a joint activity with Elmore and Mackenzie. The court held Thompson did not show evidence clearly establishing the officers seized his motorcycle in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. Accordingly, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on Thompson’s claims of illegal entry onto his property and seizure of his motorcycle. (The court’s opinion did not say anything about what happened to the motorcycle or to Rench. One hopes that the Harley Davidson was reunited with its lawful owner).
