Charles Odom v. Kenan Kaizer, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 13541

Background

In January 2004 Bismarck officers responded to a 911 call; at the scene they found Odom, Riddle Johnson (who had locked himself in a bathroom), Galen Smith (room registrant), and drug paraphernalia in plain view. Odom admitted owning a duffel bag in a vehicle containing a small amount of marijuana.
Detective Kenan Kaizer, a Bismarck drug task force officer, became the lead investigator. Fifteen months later, at a probable-cause hearing, Kaizer gave sworn oral testimony that was accurate in part but contained two inaccuracies: he stated the hotel room was registered to Odom (it was registered to Smith) and that the marijuana was found in the hotel room (it was in Odom’s duffel in a vehicle).
Kaizer’s testimony supported issuance of an arrest warrant; Odom later pled guilty to charges including possession of drug paraphernalia and misdemeanor marijuana possession.
Odom filed a § 1983 suit alleging Kaizer intentionally or recklessly provided false testimony in support of the arrest warrant. The district court dismissed; this Court previously remanded twice directing consideration of whether Kaizer is entitled to qualified immunity.
On remand the district court found Kaizer entitled to qualified immunity because his testimony was not knowing, reckless, or intentional. The Eighth Circuit reviews the summary-judgment grant de novo and affirms, holding that even correcting Kaizer’s inaccuracies, the record still supported probable cause.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Kaizer’s allegedly false testimony violated the Fourth Amendment such that § 1983 liability attaches	Odom: Kaizer knowingly or recklessly provided false information in a probable-cause hearing, infecting the warrant	Kaizer: Testimony was not knowing or reckless; any inaccuracies were inadvertent and do not negate probable cause	Court: Odom’s right to be free from deliberate/reckless falsehoods is clearly established, but Kaizer is entitled to qualified immunity because corrected facts still establish probable cause
Whether a guilty plea by Odom precludes his § 1983 claim	Odom: Not directly applicable; claim challenges issuance of the warrant, not the arrest/conviction	Kaizer: Guilty plea bars relitigation of probable cause	Court: Guilty plea does not foreclose a § 1983 claim alleging deliberate or reckless falsehoods in obtaining a warrant
Whether qualified immunity applies when an officer’s affidavit/testimony contains inaccuracies	Odom: Qualified immunity should not shield deliberate or reckless falsity	Kaizer: Even if testimony were reckless, immunity applies if a corrected affidavit would still establish probable cause	Court: Qualified immunity applies because, on the totality of circumstances, probable cause existed despite inaccuracies
Whether, on this record, probable cause existed absent Kaizer’s inaccuracies	Odom: Inaccuracies were material and undermined probable cause	Kaizer: Independent facts (Odom’s admission of duffel ownership; paraphernalia in plain view; accusation by Johnson) support probable cause	Court: Probable cause existed based on Odom’s admission and other circumstantial evidence, so warrant valid

Key Cases Cited

Bagby v. Brondhaver, 98 F.3d 1096 (8th Cir. 1996) (warrant based on affidavit containing deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard violates the Fourth Amendment)
Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (establishing rule for attacking warrants based on deliberately false or recklessly false affidavits)
Block v. Dupic, 758 F.3d 1062 (8th Cir. 2014) (officer entitled to qualified immunity if affidavit, supplemented by omitted facts, still supports probable cause)
Bruner v. Baker, 506 F.3d 1021 (10th Cir. 2007) (probable cause standard: substantial probability a crime was committed by a specific person)
Holm v. United States, 836 F.2d 1119 (8th Cir. 1988) (constructive possession may be found from circumstantial evidence linking defendant to drugs found at third party’s residence)