Brad Williams v. Horace Walters
772 F.3d 1307
8th Cir.2014Background
- Williams, a city police officer, had a hostile relationship with Police Chief Walters after Williams supported the mayor at a reinstatement hearing where Walters was present.
- In September 2011 the city discovered Williams had cashed two payroll checks for the same pay period (one issued as a replacement after Williams reported the original lost); Williams repaid the money within two days and the mayor/city council treated it as an unintentional error.
- Blue police lights (personal property of Deputy Dudderar but marked and used on duty) were in Williams’s patrol car; Walters directed an officer to retrieve lights he claimed were city property and alleged Williams told officers the lights were in his personal vehicle and lacked permission to take them.
- Walters swore an affidavit to a magistrate alleging Williams committed theft of the blue lights and theft by cashing the payroll check; a warrant issued and Williams was arrested; charges were later dismissed.
- Williams sued Walters under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest/retaliatory arrest (Fourth and First Amendment claims) and asserted related state-law claims; the district court denied Walters qualified immunity and Walters appealed that denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause for theft of blue lights | Walters fabricated statements (officer memo) and knew Williams had permission to use Dudderar’s lights, so affidavit contained falsehoods and lacked probable cause | Affidavit truthfully reported Williams said lights were in his personal vehicle and that he lacked permission | Removing false statements, affidavit did not establish probable cause; jury could find Walters lied — no immunity |
| Probable cause for theft based on check | Walters omitted that mayor and council had exonerated Williams as a mistake and that Williams promptly repaid, so affidavit was misleading and lacked mens rea for theft | Affidavit accurately described cashing of original check without asserting exculpatory context | When supplemented with omitted facts, affidavit lacks probable cause to show Williams knowingly deprived the City — no immunity |
| Franks challenge (false statements/omissions in affidavit) | Walters knowingly or recklessly included false statements and omitted material exculpatory facts to secure warrant and retaliate | Statements were reasonable and omissions not material to probable cause | Jury could find intentional/reckless falsehoods and misleading omissions sufficient to invalidate probable cause under Franks — no immunity |
| Qualified immunity / clearly established law | A reasonable official would know fabricating or omitting material facts to arrest someone in retaliation violates Fourth and First Amendment rights | Walters claims objective reasonableness because a magistrate issued a warrant | Court: Fourth Amendment protection against arrests without probable cause and requirement of truthful affidavits are clearly established; qualified immunity denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (establishes rule for invalidating warrants procured by false statements in affidavits)
- Kuehl v. Burtis, 173 F.3d 646 (mens rea must be supported for probable cause in state theft charges)
- Burk v. Beene, 948 F.2d 489 (affidavit must contain truthful factual showing sufficient for probable cause)
- Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (clearly established law / objective reasonableness standard for qualified immunity)
- Baribeau v. City of Minneapolis, 596 F.3d 465 (First Amendment retaliation and related principles)
- Messerschmidt v. Millender, 565 U.S. 535 (magistrate-issued warrant is strong evidence of objective reasonableness)