Published in Uncategorized on June 4, 2026
When a Court Gets It Right: Our 8th Circuit Victory in Cunningham v. Kahler
A court of appeals does not often get to deliver a lesson in basic fairness and constitutional accountability at the same time. In April 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit did exactly that, affirming in a published opinion that Michael Cunningham’s civil rights lawsuit against the Missouri State Highway Patrol can proceed. That ruling matters, not just for our client, but for every Missouri citizen who has been through the expungement process and expects the government to honor it.
What Happened to Michael Cunningham
In November 2021, a Missouri circuit court granted Michael Cunningham an order of expungement for a 2002 felony drug possession conviction. Under Missouri law, an expungement is not a technicality. It is a legal determination that the conviction is set aside, that the record is closed, and that the person is, for legal purposes, restored to the position of a person who was never convicted. Missouri courts take that seriously, and so does the law.
MSHP Trooper Amanda Kahler apparently did not. In 2023, Trooper Kahler arrested Michael for being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm. The arrest was based on internal MSHP records that flagged the old felony charge without reflecting the expungement judgment. Michael had the court order. He had done everything right. He was arrested anyway.
That is not a minor procedural misstep. That is a warrantless arrest of a citizen who, under Missouri law, had no felony conviction on his record. It is exactly the kind of constitutional violation that 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 was designed to address, and it is exactly why we took this case.
The Lawsuit and What We Alleged
We sued Trooper Kahler and former MSHP Superintendent Eric Olson in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri. The claims were straightforward but serious. Against Trooper Kahler, we alleged a Fourth Amendment violation: the arrest lacked probable cause because Michael’s expungement had legally erased the felony conviction that supposedly justified it. Against Superintendent Olson, we alleged deliberate indifference and failure to train.
The failure to train claim against Olson is important because this was not an isolated mistake by one trooper who read a record incorrectly. The allegations establish that the MSHP’s record-keeping practices had already caused the wrongful arrest of other Missouri citizens before Michael was arrested. Olson, as the head of the agency, allegedly knew this was happening and did nothing. He failed to train troopers on how to interpret MSHP records that might be misleading, incomplete, or that failed to reflect court-ordered expungements. When you know your records are causing innocent people to be arrested and you do nothing about it, that is not an accident. That is deliberate indifference to constitutional rights.
The Defendants Tried to Get Out
The MSHP defendants did what defendants in civil rights cases almost always do: they moved to dismiss on immunity grounds. Trooper Kahler invoked qualified immunity, and Superintendent Olson raised sovereign immunity arguments as well. These are powerful defenses that, frankly, too often shield government actors from accountability. The District Court denied both motions and allowed the case to proceed.
The defendants appealed that denial to the Eighth Circuit, which is their right. Interlocutory appeals of immunity denials are permitted because immunity is meant to protect officers from the burden of litigation, not just from judgment at trial. We briefed the case thoroughly, argued it vigorously, and waited for the court’s decision.
The 8th Circuit Argued at a Special Session
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals sits in St. Louis, but the court occasionally holds special sessions at law schools and courthouses across the circuit as part of its civic education mission. In this case, the court held oral argument at the University of Nebraska College of Law in Lincoln. That setting added weight to an already significant moment. Arguing a published civil rights case before the Eighth Circuit is not an everyday occurrence for any firm, and doing so before a law school audience meant the stakes were visible in a way that courtroom arguments often are not.
Don Brown, a partner with the firm presented our argument. The argument itself covered both the Fourth Amendment probable cause question and the deliberate indifference theory against Olson. We had to establish that the law was clearly established at the time of the arrest, that a reasonable officer in Kahler’s position would have known that arresting a man with a valid expungement order in hand violated his constitutional rights, and that Olson’s failure to address known systemic problems in MSHP record-keeping rose to the level of deliberate indifference. The panel asked hard questions, which is exactly what you want. Hard questions from a prepared court mean the court is taking the case seriously.
What the Eighth Circuit Held
In its published opinion issued in April 2026, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling on both claims. The court concluded that Cunningham had plausibly alleged a Fourth Amendment violation, because an arrest premised on a felony conviction that no longer legally exists cannot be supported by probable cause. The court also found that the deliberate indifference claim against Olson was adequately pleaded, given the allegations that Olson had prior notice that MSHP record-keeping was causing wrongful arrests and failed to act.
The fact that this is a published opinion matters significantly. A published Eighth Circuit opinion is binding precedent across the circuit, which covers Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Other courts in the circuit are now on notice that a warrantless arrest based on an expunged record can give rise to a cognizable Section 1983 claim and that supervisory officials who ignore known systemic deficiencies in their agencies’ record-keeping systems can face deliberate indifference liability. This opinion does not just help Michael Cunningham. It creates legal protection for every person in seven states who has been through the expungement process.
Why This Win Matters Beyond This Case
The expungement system in Missouri and across the country operates on a simple premise: if a court grants you an expungement, the legal slate is clean. Government agencies are expected to update their records to reflect that. When they do not, and when citizens are arrested and charged as though the expungement never happened, the constitutional injury is real and the damage to that person’s life is immediate and severe. Michael was placed under arrest. He was booked. He faced a firearms charge. His life was disrupted because the Missouri State Highway Patrol had not bothered to ensure its internal records matched the official court record.
Civil rights litigation is difficult and expensive. Qualified immunity, as the doctrine has developed, places enormous obstacles in front of plaintiffs who have suffered genuine constitutional violations. The fact that Michael’s case survived those obstacles at both the district court level and the Eighth Circuit level is a meaningful legal achievement. This case now goes back to the District Court for further proceedings on the merits. The fight is not over, but the path is clear.
Our Commitment to Civil Rights Work
Douglas, Haun and Heidemann has represented individuals against powerful institutions for over a century. We handle the cases that most firms would not take, and we take civil rights work seriously because constitutional violations are not abstract. They happen to real people, in real communities, and they cause real harm. Michael Cunningham’s arrest was wrong. The law says so. The Eighth Circuit says so. And we intend to see this case through to a result that reflects that.
If you or someone you know has been arrested, searched, or otherwise subjected to governmental action you believe violated your constitutional rights, contact our office. We will evaluate your case honestly and tell you what we think it is worth. The Constitution means something, and so does holding the government accountable when it fails to honor it.
The firm has practiced civil rights, personal injury, and criminal defense law since 1912. Cunningham v. Kahler, Case No. 24-3261 (8th Cir. April 2026).