Anna Davis v. Jack Strain
676 F. App'x 285
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Dr. Anna Davis sued four officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging Fourth Amendment false arrest for an allegedly backdated valium prescription; officers asserted qualified immunity and moved for summary judgment.
- Police received complaints from Dr. Rachel Murphy (patient failed drug screen; patient later produced a prescription dated Jan. 21, 2013, which Murphy believed fraudulent) and from a pharmacist (who later said he backdated the fill date and transaction indicated Jan. 31, 2013).
- The patient gave a statement admitting he requested a back-dated prescription; his credibility was contested and he had an extensive criminal history which the warrant affidavit did not disclose.
- Searches of Dr. Davis’s records revealed two signed January 21 entries in different pens, the second referencing the prescription; Davis denied backdating and said she saw the patient on Jan. 31 with no prescription noted.
- Officers obtained an arrest warrant for Dr. Davis; Davis claimed the affidavit omitted the patient’s criminal history and a non-prosecution agreement and misrepresented the timeline, which she argued defeated probable cause.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the officers; the Fifth Circuit affirmed, finding that even accepting Davis’s version, the remaining verified information sufficed for probable cause and qualified immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers lost qualified immunity by including false statements/omitting material facts in the warrant affidavit | Davis: officers omitted patient’s criminal history and a non‑prosecution deal and misstated timeline such that the affidavit lacked probable cause | Officers: affidavit included independently verified evidence (Dr. Murphy, pharmacist, records) supporting probable cause; omissions not outcome-determinative | Qualified immunity affirmed — omissions/falsehoods were not necessary to probable cause |
| Whether the warrant was invalid under Franks (intentional/reckless falsehoods necessary to probable cause) | Davis: affidavit contained material falsehoods/omissions meeting Franks standard | Officers: evidence from unchallenged sources and independent verification meant probable cause would remain even with omitted facts | No Franks violation shown; probable cause remains without contested evidence |
| Whether probable cause existed for arrest (objective standard) | Davis: reconstructed affidavit (with omissions) would not show probable cause | Officers: facts known to officers — failed test, suspicious prescription, pharmacist’s backdating, chart anomalies — suffice for a reasonable officer | Probable cause existed as a matter of law given the verified facts available to officers |
| Whether statements from the patient (possibly unreliable) were the sole basis for the warrant | Davis: patient provided key inculpatory facts and had credibility problems | Officers: other independent, credible sources corroborated key facts; warrants and record checks independently verified aspects | Patient’s statements not sole basis; independent corroboration supports probable cause |
Key Cases Cited
- DePree v. Saunders, 588 F.3d 282 (5th Cir. 2009) (standard of appellate review for summary judgment)
- Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S. Ct. 1861 (2014) (nonmovant’s evidence must be believed on qualified immunity review)
- Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305 (2015) (qualified immunity protects officials unless conduct violates clearly established law)
- Franks v. Delaware, 98 S. Ct. 2674 (1978) (standard for attacking a warrant affidavit for deliberate or reckless falsehoods)
- Mendenhall v. Riser, 213 F.3d 226 (5th Cir. 2000) (objective probable cause inquiry; consider information known at arrest)
- United States v. Morris, 477 F.2d 657 (5th Cir. 1973) (probable cause requires less than convicting evidence)
- Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (1986) (purpose of qualified immunity to protect all but plainly incompetent officials)