Chism v. Washington State
2011 WL 5304125
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- WSP obtained warrants to search the Chisms’ home and Todd Chism’s workplace based on Gardner’s affidavit in a child-pornography Internet probe.
- Two Yahoo-hosted sites (foel and qem) were linked to the Chisms via Yahoo subscriber data and the Chisms’ credit card payments for hosting.
- IP addresses tied to the sites pointed to individuals other than the Chisms, and the Yahoo profiles contained nonsensical identifying information.
- The search/arrest warrants were executed; no child pornography was found and no charges were filed against Todd Chism.
- Chisms filed § 1983 suit alleging Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations due to false statements and omissions in the affidavits and CPC; district court granted qualified immunity to the officers.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding there was a substantial showing of deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth, and that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity; the false statements and omissions were material to probable cause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judicial deception violation of Fourth Amendment? | Chisms: intentional/reckless deception in affidavits | Officers: no constitutional violation proven | Yes; material deception present and actionable |
| Qualified immunity defeat on deception claim? | Right not to be searched/arrested due to deception clearly established | Qualified immunity applies unless clearly established right violated | No; not entitled to qualified immunity |
| Materiality of false statements for probable cause (search warrants)? | False statements/omissions were material to probable cause | Corrections would still support probable cause under totality of circumstances | Material; corrected affidavit would not yield probable cause |
| Materiality of false statements for arrest (CPC)? | CPC carried false statements/omissions affecting arrest | Arrest based on CPC; de minimis omissions allowed | Material; arrest deception supports claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Gourde, 440 F.3d 1065 (9th Cir. 2006) (triad of solid facts for probable cause in computer-child-pornography case (en banc))
- Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (Supreme Court 1983) (totality of the circumstances and fair probability standard)
- Stanert, 762 F.2d 781 (9th Cir. 1985) (reckless disregard as basis to negate immunity; substantial showing standard)
- Liston, 120 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 1997) (substantial showing standard for judicial deception)
- Hervey, 65 F.3d 784 (9th Cir. 1995) (judicial deception claims analyzed under Franks-related framework)
- Branch v. Tunnell, 937 F.2d 1382 (9th Cir. 1991) (no qualified immunity when false statements knowingly used to obtain warrant)
- al-Kidd, 131 S. Ct. 2074 (2011) (clearly established rights require that precedent place the question beyond debate)
- Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (1986) (immunity issues tied to probable-cause framing)
- Smith v. Almada, 640 F.3d 931 (9th Cir. 2011) (distinction between judicial deception and ordinary lack of probable cause)