Callahan v. Unified Govt of Wyandotte
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 19872
| 10th Cir. | 2015Background
- KCKPD and FBI conducted a sting (“Operation Sticky Fingers”) to detect thefts by officers in the SCORE (SWAT-like) unit during execution of a fictitious search warrant; live audio/video monitored by detectives.
- Detective Kelley observed thefts on video but, because officers wore protective gear and identification was delayed/secondhand, commanders could not identify which officers committed the thefts at the time.
- After the sting, commanders arrested the entire SCORE unit as they exited their van; later only three officers pled guilty to theft; several other SCORE members (Callahan, Pittman, Hammons) sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming arrests lacked probable cause.
- The district court denied summary judgment for defendants on qualified-immunity grounds, citing disputed facts about probable cause but providing limited factual explanation; defendants appealed the denial of qualified immunity.
- The Tenth Circuit reviewed whether (1) it had jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal of the qualified-immunity denial and (2) the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established that arresting an entire small group in these circumstances was unlawful.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to hear interlocutory appeal of denial of qualified immunity | District-court denial rested on disputed facts, so appeal not proper | Denial raised legal question about clearly established law; appeal is permitted | Court has jurisdiction to review denial of qualified immunity to individual defendants |
| Whether officers violated clearly established Fourth Amendment rights by arresting entire SCORE unit | Arrests lacked individualized probable cause; Ybarra requires particularized suspicion | Pringle and ambiguity in multi-suspect contexts meant officers lacked clear notice that group arrest was unlawful | Reversed district court: law was not clearly established; defendants entitled to qualified immunity |
| Whether probable cause actually existed to arrest Plaintiffs | Plaintiffs: no probable cause to arrest nonthieves | Defendants: reasonable to arrest entire small unit given observations and investigative context | Court did not resolve probable-cause question (unnecessary after clearance on clearly established-law prong) |
| Appeal by Unified Government (entity defendant) | Plaintiffs: if no constitutional violation, render judgment for entity | Entity: appealed denial of summary judgment below | Entity not entitled to qualified immunity; Tenth Circuit dismissed Unified Government’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (discretion to decide qualified immunity prongs; interlocutory appeal of immunity denials)
- Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85 (probable cause must be particularized to the person searched or seized)
- Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366 (officers may arrest all occupants when evidence supports inference of joint enterprise)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (do not define clearly established law at high level of generality)
- Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (some rights so obvious that reasonable officers know they are illegal)
- Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 1 (summary-judgment and view-of-the-evidence principles in Fourth Amendment qualified-immunity context)
- Gross v. Pirtle, 245 F.3d 1151 (10th Cir. standard on interlocutory review of qualified-immunity denials)