City of Hays v. Vogt, 584 U.S. ___ (2018)
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
CITY OF HAYS, KANSAS, PETITIONER v. MATTHEW JACK DWIGHT VOGT
on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the tenth circuit
[May 29, 2018]
The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.
It is so ordered.
Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
|April 10, 2017||Application (16A996) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from April 30, 2017 to June 29, 2017, submitted to Justice Sotomayor.|
|April 21, 2017||Application (16A996) granted by Justice Sotomayor extending the time to file until June 29, 2017.|
|June 13, 2017||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 17, 2017)|
|June 29, 2017||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including August 16, 2017.|
|August 16, 2017||Brief of respondent Matthew Jack D. Vogt in opposition filed.|
|August 23, 2017||Reply of petitioner City of Hays, Kansas filed.|
|August 30, 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/25/2017.|
|September 28, 2017||Petition GRANTED. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.|
|October 2, 2017||Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner.|
|October 31, 2017||Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, City of Hays, Kansas|
|November 2, 2017||Blanket Consent filed by Respondent, Matthew Jack D. Vogt.|
|November 6, 2017||Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner GRANTED. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.|
|November 13, 2017||Brief of petitioner City of Hays, Kansas filed.
|November 20, 2017||Brief amici curiae of The State of Kansas and 12 Other States filed.
|November 20, 2017||Brief amicus curiae of State and Local Government Employers filed.
|November 20, 2017||Brief amicus curiae of Criminal Justice Legal Foundation filed.
|November 20, 2017||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.
|December 11, 2017||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.
|December 13, 2017||Brief of respondent Matthew Jack D. Vogt filed.
|December 20, 2017||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Tuesday, February 20, 2018|
|December 20, 2017||Brief amici curiae of American Federation of Government Employees and American Federation of Teachers filed.
|December 20, 2017||Brief amicus curiae of Criminal Procedure Scholars filed.
|December 20, 2017||Brief amicus curiae of National Fraternal Order of Police filed.
|December 20, 2017||Brief amici curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and American Civil Liberties Union filed.
|January 5, 2018||CIRCULATED|
|January 8, 2018||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.|
|January 8, 2018||Reply of petitioner City of Hays, Kansas filed. (Distributed)
|January 10, 2018||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 10th Circuit.|
|January 12, 2018||The entire record from the U.S.C.A. 10th Circuit is electronic and located on PACER.|
|February 1, 2018||The record received from the U.S.D.C. District of Kansas is electronic.|
|February 20, 2018||Argued. For petitioner: Toby J. Heytens, Charlottesville, Va.; and Elizabeth B. Prelogar, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondent: Kelsi B. Corkran, Washington, D. C.|
|May 29, 2018||Writ of certiorari DISMISSED as improvidently granted. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. Opinion per curiam.|
|July 2, 2018||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
- Vogt v. City of Hays, No. 15-3266 (10th Cir. Jan. 04, 2017)
Plaintiff-appellant Matthew Vogt was employed as a police officer with the City of Hays. In late 2013, Vogt applied for a position with the City of Haysville's police department. During Haysville's hiring process, Vogt disclosed that he had kept a knife obtained in the course of his work as a Hays police officer. Notwithstanding this disclosure, Haysville conditionally offered Vogt the job only if he reported his acquisition of the knife and returned it to the Hays police department. Vogt satisfied the condition, reporting to the Hays police department that he had kept the knife. The Hays police chief ordered Vogt to submit a written report concerning his possession of the knife. Vogt complied, submitting a vague one sentence report. He then provided Hays with a two-week notice of resignation, intending to accept the new job with Haysville. In the meantime, the Hays police chief began an internal investigation into Vogt's possession of the knife, including requiring a more detailed statement to supplement the report. Vogt complied, and the Hays police used the additional statement to locate additional evidence. Based on Vogt's statements and the additional evidence, the Hays police chief asked the Kansas Bureau of Investigation to start a criminal investigation, supplying Vogt's statements and the additional evidence. The criminal investigation led the Haysville police department to withdraw its job offer. Vogt was ultimately charged in Kansas state court with two felony counts related to his possession of the knife. Following a probable cause hearing, the state district court determined that probable cause was lacking and dismissed the charges. This suit followed, with Vogt alleging his constitutional rights were violated because his statements were used: (1) to start an investigation leading to the discovery of additional evidence concerning the knife; (2) to initiate a criminal investigation; (3) to bring criminal charges; and (4) to support the prosecution during the probable cause hearing. Vogt argued that these uses of compelled statements violated his right against self-incrimination. Based on the alleged Fifth Amendment violation, Vogt also invoked 42 U.S.C. 1983, suing: (1) the City of Hays; (2) the City of Haysville; and (3) four police officers. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, reasoning that: the right against self-incrimination was only a trial right, and Vogt's statements were used in pretrial proceedings, not in a trial. The Tenth Circuit, after review, concluded: (1) the Fifth Amendment is violated when criminal defendants are compelled to incriminate themselves and the incriminating statement is used in a probable cause hearing; (2) the individual officers were entitled to qualified immunity; (3) the City of Haysville did not compel Vogt to incriminate himself; (4) Vogt stated a plausible claim for relief against the City of Hays. The Court therefore affirmed dismissal of claims against the four officers and Haysville, and reversed dismissal against the City of Hays.
Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.