Angello Osborne v. Peter Georgiades
679 F. App'x 234
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Child-adult sexual-abuse allegation: mother reported that her 5-year-old daughter (JMLO) accused father Angelo Osborne of sexual abuse; a forensic interview using RATAC was recorded and JMLO initially denied abuse several times, then described and demonstrated abuse with dolls.
- Investigators: licensed social worker Dione White interviewed JMLO while Corporal Peter Georgiades observed via live video and communicated with White by phone three times during the interview; a medical exam showed no physical signs but stated that absence of injury did not rule out abuse.
- Prosecutorial review: Deputy State’s Attorney Diane Tobin viewed the interview and accepted the case for prosecution before Georgiades sought an arrest warrant.
- Warrant and prosecution: Georgiades applied for a warrant that recited JMLO’s allegations but did not disclose her repeated denials or (allegedly) the medical exam; an arrest warrant issued, Osborne was arrested and detained for months, later indicted, and ultimately the state placed the case on the stet docket.
- § 1983 suit and procedural posture: Osborne sued Georgiades alleging Fourth Amendment unreasonable seizure based on fabricated evidence and material omissions; district court denied Georgiades’ summary judgment motion as to qualified immunity; Fourth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fabrication of evidence (interviewer coached child) | Osborne: Georgiades pressured White to ask leading/suggestive questions, causing JMLO to fabricate allegations and producing false evidence used for the warrant. | Georgiades: denies fabrication; (on appeal) argued qualified immunity and lack of fabrication but raised fabrication challenges late. | District court found a jury could infer Georgiades exerted pressure that produced fabricated evidence; Georgiades waived appellate challenge to that finding; majority did not address merits of fabrication claim. |
| Omission of material facts from warrant affidavit | Osborne: Georgiades omitted JMLO’s six denials and the medical exam results, deliberately or recklessly misleading the magistrate and defeating probable cause (Franks standard). | Georgiades: omissions were not made with intent/reckless disregard and were not material to probable cause; probable cause existed. | Court: a jury could find omissions were deliberate/reckless; although the district court misstated materiality standard, the omitted facts were material under Franks because inserting them would have defeated probable cause. |
| Qualified immunity (was Fourth Amendment right clearly established?) | Osborne: omission/fabrication claims show violation of clearly established Fourth Amendment right not to be arrested without probable cause. | Georgiades: argued (in district ct) he was entitled to immunity; on appeal he largely waived some challenges. | Court: Georgiades not entitled to qualified immunity — Fourth Amendment protection against arrests based on deliberately or recklessly omitted material facts was clearly established. |
| Indictment/grand jury as bar to false arrest claim | Osborne: N/A (plaintiff) | Georgiades: indictment/ grand jury finding established probable cause and defeats false-arrest claim (raised first on appeal). | Court: argument waived (not raised below), so appellate court declined to consider it. |
Key Cases Cited
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (qualified immunity standard for government officials)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (standard for challenging a warrant affidavit based on false statements or omissions — intent/recklessness and materiality)
- Miller v. Prince George’s County, 475 F.3d 621 (4th Cir. 2007) (application of Franks in § 1983 false-arrest/omission context)
- Colkley, 899 F.2d 297 (4th Cir. 1990) (omission materiality standard and limits on inferring bad motive from omission alone)
- Evans v. Chalmers, 703 F.3d 636 (4th Cir. 2012) (Franks analysis and interplay with prosecutor involvement)
- Brooks v. City of Winston-Salem, 85 F.3d 178 (4th Cir. 1996) (probable cause required for seizure under Fourth Amendment)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (qualified immunity two-step analysis)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (discretion to decide order of qualified-immunity prongs)