Braswell v. MedinaÂ, 255 N.C. App. 217

Background

Phillip Braswell borrowed money from his relatives beginning in 1998 and invested those funds alongside his own; by late 2008 market losses had depleted the accounts. Records seized from his home showed large Fidelity account balances in early 2008 and no clear evidence that he diverted the Greenes’ funds for personal use.
Officer Brandon Medina (and officers Denton and Whitley) investigated after the Greenes reported losses, obtained a search warrant, seized financial records, arrested Braswell, and caused a grand jury indictment for obtaining property by false pretenses (alleging Braswell did not invest the monies in legitimate financial institutions).
Braswell was convicted in 2012 but that conviction was vacated on appeal because the appellate court found no support in the record for the allegation that Braswell failed to invest the funds.
Braswell filed a 2016 civil suit asserting federal § 1983 malicious-prosecution claims (fabrication/concealment of evidence causing arrest and indictment), state malicious prosecution, obstruction of justice, emotional distress claims, and a North Carolina constitutional claim against the City and State.
The trial court dismissed all claims under Rule 12(b)(6). On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part: it reversed dismissal of § 1983 claims, state malicious-prosecution claims, and the state-constitutional claim against the City; it affirmed dismissal of obstruction-of-justice and several tort claims and the claim against the State.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether complaint pleads lack of probable cause for arrest/prosecution (§ 1983 malicious prosecution)	Braswell alleged Officers fabricated and concealed evidence and seized records actually showing investments in legitimate institutions, so no probable cause existed	Officers argued the indictment/papers and seized records supported probable cause	Court: Reversed dismissal — complaint sufficiently alleged absence of probable cause to support § 1983 malicious-prosecution claim
Whether prosecutors/grand jury break causal chain (causation)	Fabrication/concealment by officers tainted prosecutor/grand jury decisions, so officers caused unlawful seizure	Officers argued independent decisions by prosecutor/grand jury superseded their conduct and cut off liability	Court: Reversed dismissal — intervening prosecutor/grand jury do not shield officers when officers withheld/fabricated evidence that induced charging/indictment
Whether officers entitled to qualified immunity	Braswell: right not to be seized/prosecuted on fabricated evidence was clearly established	Officers: claimed entitlement to immunity because (they argued) probable cause or established precedent	Court: Reversed dismissal — qualified immunity not available at pleading stage given allegations of deliberate fabrication/concealment violating clearly established Fourth Amendment rights
Whether state common-law malicious prosecution claim stated	Braswell alleged participation, lack of probable cause, malice (fabrication/concealment), and favorable termination	Defendants relied on indictment presumption of probable cause and urged dismissal	Court: Reversed dismissal — indictment is only prima facie evidence; allegations rebut presumption and state claim survives pleading stage
Whether common-law obstruction of justice claim is viable based on officers’ conduct in criminal investigation	Braswell argued obstruction tort covers fabrication/concealment by officers that obstructed justice	City/officers argued obstruction tort has not been applied to police conduct in prosecutions and is limited to acts that prevent a plaintiff’s access to civil remedies or frustrate administration of justice in other ways	Court: Affirmed dismissal — North Carolina precedent limits civil obstruction claims to acts that impede another’s ability to seek/obtain legal remedy; not extended to this kind of intra-prosecution police conduct
Whether state constitutional claim against City may proceed	Braswell: state constitutional claim survives because state-law remedies may prove inadequate if governmental immunity bars tort remedies	City: claimed adequate state remedies exist and sought dismissal	Court: Reversed dismissal as premature — because governmental immunity defenses remain unresolved, the constitutional claim cannot be dismissed at pleading stage

Key Cases Cited

Evans v. Chalmers, 703 F.3d 636 (4th Cir. 2012) (recognizes § 1983 malicious-prosecution elements and that officers may be liable when they fabricate or conceal evidence that affects charging)
White v. Frank, 855 F.2d 956 (2d Cir. 1988) (prosecutor/grand jury decisions do not automatically shield witnesses/officers who knowingly provide false evidence)
Webb v. United States, 789 F.3d 647 (6th Cir. 2015) (fabricating evidence that likely affects adjudication violates clearly established rights — relevant to qualified immunity analysis)
Turner v. Thomas, 369 N.C. 419 (N.C. 2016) (an indictment is prima facie evidence of probable cause but that presumption may be rebutted)
Henry v. Deen, 310 N.C. 75 (N.C. 1984) (recognized civil liability tied to common-law obstruction of justice where parties destroy or fabricate records to defeat legal claims)
Grant v. High Point Reg’l Health Sys., 184 N.C. App. 250 (N.C. Ct. App. 2007) (applied Henry to hold destruction of records that precludes a plaintiff’s malpractice claim can state obstruction of justice)
Blackburn v. Carbone, 208 N.C. App. 519 (N.C. Ct. App. 2010) (surveyed obstruction-of-justice precedent and explained the tort’s scope requires acts that impede a party’s ability to seek/obtain legal remedies)
State v. Braswell, 225 N.C. App. 734 (N.C. Ct. App. 2013) (vacated Braswell’s criminal conviction for lack of evidence supporting allegation he failed to invest victims’ funds)