Aubrey Williams v. Daniel Aguirre
965 F.3d 1147
11th Cir.2020Background
- In April 2014 Officers Aguirre and Haluska stopped Aubrey Williams during a gas-station investigation; Williams carried a concealed gun without a permit and, according to his account, dropped the gun in a bag while complying on his knees.
- Officer Aguirre shot Williams twice; a patrol-car dashcam (with a ~60-second pre-activation buffer) recorded the moments immediately before the shooting and shows Williams on hands/knees with a bag/gun nearby.
- The officers initially told investigators Williams had pointed a gun at each officer; affidavits charging attempted murder repeated that claim and a judge issued an arrest warrant. Williams remained jailed ~16 months pretrial on two attempted-murder charges.
- After media publication of the dashcam, the DA dismissed the charges (citing inability to meet its burden), and Williams sued the officers for malicious prosecution under the Fourth Amendment (§ 1983) and Alabama law, alleging fabrication of evidence.
- The officers moved for summary judgment asserting qualified immunity and state-agent immunity, arguing probable cause (for a misdemeanor concealed-weapon offense or at least arguable probable cause for attempted murder) and lack of causation; the district court denied the motions.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding that (viewing evidence for Williams) genuine disputes exist whether the officers intentionally made material false statements in the warrant affidavit, whether the resulting seizure was unconstitutional, and whether state-agent immunity is defeated by malice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Qualified-immunity for §1983 malicious-prosecution (Fourth Amendment) | Aguirre and Haluska fabricated evidence and knowingly made false statements that led to an invalid warrant and prolonged pretrial detention. | Officers had probable cause (or arguable probable cause) — at least for carrying a concealed firearm and possibly for attempted murder — so no constitutional violation. | Denied: genuine dispute that officers intentionally made material false statements necessary to probable cause and seizure was too long to be justified as warrantless. No qualified immunity at summary stage. |
| Applicability of the any-crime rule to malicious prosecution | Any-crime rule irrelevant; must assess probable cause for the specific charges that produced the seizure. | Any-crime rule applies; probable cause for any offense (e.g., concealed weapon) defeats claim. | Rejected: any-crime rule does not apply to malicious-prosecution claims based on seizures pursuant to legal process. |
| Standard for probable cause for seizures pursuant to legal process | Probable cause should be judged by what was before the judicial officer who issued the warrant; false statements that were necessary render the process invalid. | Use the false-arrest (officer-knowledge) standard; facts known to officers can justify probable cause. | Reconciled: plaintiff must show the legal process (warrant/affidavit) was constitutionally infirm (e.g., intentional/reckless falsehoods) and that the seizure would not be justified without the process; magistrate’s view controls but warrantless-justification remains an alternative. |
| State-agent immunity under Alabama law for malicious prosecution | Officers acted maliciously (fabricated evidence), so immunity exception applies. | State-agent immunity bars suit absent evidence of willful, malicious, bad-faith, or beyond-authority conduct. | Denied: genuine dispute of malice exists; state-agent immunity not appropriate on summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (an affidavit containing intentional false statements necessary to probable cause voids warrant)
- Manuel v. City of Joliet, 137 S. Ct. 911 (2017) (pretrial detention unsupported by probable cause is a Fourth Amendment claim)
- Paez v. Mulvey, 915 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 2019) (malicious-prosecution § 1983 framework; material-misstatement analysis)
- Jones v. Cannon, 174 F.3d 1271 (11th Cir. 1999) (officer liable if magistrate’s probable-cause determination was supplied with false information)
- District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577 (2018) (clearly established law/qualified-immunity standards)
- Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (2004) (any-crime rule for warrantless arrests)
- Whiteley v. Warden, 401 U.S. 560 (1971) (review of warrant validity limited to information presented to magistrate)
- Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (1986) (officer liable for a warrant application he should have known lacked probable cause)
- County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991) (prompt judicial probable-cause determination required for warrantless arrests)
- Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1975) (judicial determination of probable cause required for continued pretrial detention)