Perryman v. Bloomington
- Donovan Frank
- 0:23-cv-01984
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 22
In Perryman v. City of Bloomington, Judge Frank ruled that Kylese Perryman's false arrest and false imprisonment claims against Detective Andrew Risdall will go to trial because a genuine factual dispute exists about whether Risdall's investigation was reasonable, while also allowing a separate claim against the City of Bloomington to proceed based on its widespread practice of using police alert designations as de facto arrest warrants.
Individuals who are misidentified as criminal suspects and arrested based on law enforcement alert systems without independent probable cause established by the arresting officer; people arrested by Bloomington police using 'pick up and hold' KOPS alerts; and municipalities that use alert systems without adequate training on constitutional requirements.
What happened
In Perryman v. City of Bloomington, Kylese Perryman sued Detective Andrew Risdall and the City of Bloomington after he was misidentified as a robbery suspect, arrested, jailed over a weekend, and had criminal charges filed against him before those charges were dismissed when his attorney produced alibi evidence, including photos of his tattoos, a photo of him at a family gathering during the robbery, and work records showing he was employed during a related car theft. Perryman brought multiple claims under federal civil rights law (42 U.S.C. § 1983) and Minnesota state law, alleging false arrest, false imprisonment, and that the city's use of a statewide police alert system called KOPS — specifically alerts marked 'pick up and hold' — violated his Fourth Amendment right not to be arrested without independent probable cause established by the arresting officer.
The court found that a real factual dispute exists over whether Risdall's identification process was reasonable — particularly whether he should have checked Perryman's documented tattoos before identifying him as the suspect — meaning a jury must decide that question. The court found that Perryman's constitutional rights were violated when the Minnesota State Patrol trooper arrested him based solely on Risdall's KOPS alert without independently establishing probable cause, but granted Risdall qualified immunity on that specific issue because no prior court decision had clearly forbidden officers from issuing such alerts. The court dismissed the state tort law claims against both Risdall and Bloomington because Risdall acted in good faith by promptly sharing exculpatory evidence with prosecutors once it was provided to him.
Judge Frank granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion for summary judgment, and denied Perryman's motion for partial summary judgment entirely. The false arrest and false imprisonment claims (Counts I and II) survive only against Risdall, not against Bloomington directly. However, the Monell municipal liability claim (Count III) — alleging that Bloomington had a widespread, unconstitutional custom of treating 'pick up and hold' KOPS alerts as standalone arrest warrants without requiring the arresting officer to independently find probable cause — survives and will proceed to trial against the City of Bloomington. Several other counts, including the civil conspiracy claim, the Particularity Clause claim against Risdall, the state tort claims, and the Minnesota Constitution claim, were dismissed with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Perryman v. City of Bloomington et al., Civil No. 23-1984 (DWF/DTS), United States District Court, District of Minnesota
- Donovan W. Frank, United States District Judge
- September 5, 2025
Background
On September 4, 2021, two teenagers committed an aggravated robbery at the Mall of America in Bloomington, Minnesota. Investigating Detective Andrew Risdall traced the suspects to a Brooklyn Center Walmart through a stolen debit card. Risdall obtained Walmart surveillance footage and sent a still image to Crime Analyst Rachel Storlie, who forwarded it to the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office for facial recognition analysis. Facial recognition software found no match, but HCSO analyst Nicole Hughes noticed a resemblance to a booking photo of Kylese Perryman from a prior arrest and emailed Storlie, who relayed the information to Risdall. Neither analyst made a positive identification; both deferred to Risdall. Risdall spent two to three minutes comparing the booking photo to the still image and reviewed Perryman's profile in the Minnesota Repository of Arrest Photographs (MRAP), which noted tattoos but included no photos of them. Risdall did not compare the written tattoo descriptions to the suspect. He then issued a 'Keep Our Police Safe' (KOPS) alert with a 'pick up and hold' designation — a statewide system used to flag individuals for law enforcement — identifying Perryman as a suspect who was armed and dangerous.
On September 25, 2021, a Minnesota State Patrol trooper stopped Perryman for a traffic violation, found the KOPS alert, contacted Bloomington dispatch (which confirmed with Risdall that the alert was valid), and arrested Perryman. Perryman spent the weekend in jail. On September 28, 2021, the Hennepin County Attorney's Office filed a criminal complaint charging him with first-degree aggravated robbery. Throughout October 2021, Perryman's attorney provided Risdall with exculpatory evidence — photos of Perryman's forearm tattoos, a photo of him at a family gathering on the day of the robbery, and work timecards showing he was working during the related car theft. Risdall forwarded all of that to the county attorney's office. On November 16, 2021, the charges were dismissed.
Claims
Perryman filed suit alleging: (I) false arrest under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (II) false imprisonment under § 1983; (III) Monell municipal liability (unconstitutional unofficial custom in use of KOPS alerts); (IV) civil conspiracy under § 1983 (voluntarily withdrawn as moot due to a settlement, dismissed with prejudice); (V) violation of the Particularity Clause of the Fourth Amendment via KOPS alert use; (VI & VII) state tort law false arrest and false imprisonment; and (VIII) unreasonable search and seizure under the Minnesota Constitution.
Unidentified Defendants (Does 1-10 and 11-20)
Both parties agreed that dismissal was proper because the identities of these defendants could not be determined even after discovery. The court dismissed all claims against them with prejudice.
Counts I & II — False Arrest and False Imprisonment against Risdall
Risdall claimed qualified immunity (a legal doctrine that shields government officials from civil liability unless they violated a clearly established legal right). The court found a genuine dispute of material fact about whether Risdall's investigation was objectively reasonable, requiring trial. Key disputed facts include: (1) whether Risdall reviewed the Walmart surveillance video when making his identification (the parties sharply disagree); and (2) whether it was reasonable not to check Perryman's documented tattoos before identifying him as the suspect, given that checking scars, marks, and tattoos (SMTs) is generally accepted practice and that even Defendants' own expert acknowledged written tattoo descriptions should be considered even without photos. Because a reasonable jury could find either way, neither Risdall (seeking dismissal via qualified immunity) nor Perryman (seeking summary judgment in his favor) prevailed. Both motions were denied as to these claims against Risdall, and they will go to trial.
Counts I & II — False Arrest and False Imprisonment against Bloomington
Perryman made no Monell arguments tying Bloomington's liability to the reasonableness of Risdall's identification; his Monell arguments addressed only the KOPS alert custom. Therefore, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Bloomington on Counts I and II.
Count V — Particularity Clause (Fourth Amendment), Risdall
The court found a constitutional violation: the trooper arrested Perryman without independently finding probable cause, relying solely on Risdall's KOPS alert. Under Furlow v. Belmar, 52 F.4th 393 (8th Cir. 2022), a warrantless arrest prompted by one officer's alert is unconstitutional unless the arresting officer independently finds probable cause or worked closely with the issuing officer on a joint investigation. Here, the trooper and Risdall never spoke directly; the trooper merely confirmed through dispatch that the alert was still valid, which the court held does not satisfy the independent probable cause requirement. However, the court granted Risdall qualified immunity because no court had previously explicitly held that an officer cannot issue a 'pick up and hold' KOPS alert, meaning the specific prohibition was not clearly established. Defendants' motion as to Count V was granted.
Count III — Monell Liability (Unofficial Custom), Bloomington
The court denied summary judgment for Bloomington on this count and found that Perryman established sufficient evidence to proceed to trial. Key findings: (1) The practice was not isolated — Bloomington issued 1,794 KOPS alerts over five years, 331 with 'pick up and hold' designations; (2) Bloomington employees testified that 'pick up and hold' KOPS alerts were treated as sufficient to detain, establishing a pattern; (3) the constitutional harm was sufficiently similar across uses of the system, because anyone arrested based solely on verification of one officer's probable cause determination suffers the same constitutional violation; (4) the lack of training on constitutional use of KOPS alerts evidenced deliberate indifference (a required element of Monell liability); and (5) the custom was the moving force behind Perryman's arrest because, without the KOPS alert, he would not have been arrested. The court also noted that Defendants failed to respond to Perryman's arguments on deliberate indifference and moving force, which constituted waiver of those arguments.
Counts VI & VII — State Tort Law (False Arrest and False Imprisonment), Risdall and Bloomington
Risdall invoked official immunity under Minnesota law, which protects public officials exercising discretionary judgment. Identifying a suspect and finding probable cause are discretionary acts. To overcome official immunity, Perryman had to show Risdall acted with malice — meaning his conduct was not objectively legally reasonable, not in good faith, or violated a clearly established right. The court found a genuine dispute as to reasonableness (first and third prongs), but found that Risdall acted in good faith because he promptly forwarded all exculpatory evidence to the county attorney once he received it. Perryman did not address the bad-faith prong in his briefing. The court therefore granted official immunity to Risdall. Because Risdall was protected by official immunity, Bloomington was entitled to vicarious official immunity. Both Counts VI and VII were dismissed with prejudice.
Count VIII — Minnesota Constitutional Claim
Because Perryman's state constitutional claim under Article I, Section 10 of the Minnesota Constitution is coextensive with his federal § 1983 claims, the court declined to separately analyze whether a private right of action exists under the state constitution and granted summary judgment for Defendants, dismissing this count with prejudice.
Final Outcome
The case proceeds to trial on: (1) Counts I and II (federal false arrest and false imprisonment) against Risdall only; and (2) Count III (Monell municipal liability for the KOPS alert custom) against Bloomington. All other counts are dismissed with prejudice. Perryman's request for partial summary judgment was denied entirely. Defendants' request for costs and disbursements was denied.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 22-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.