576 F. App'x 636
8th Cir.2014Background
- In March 2010 Officer Thomas Hadden, working with a multi-jurisdictional task force, received a confidential tip that drugs were sold from a Davenport residence by “Augusta Lacy,” “Buddha,” and “Bill.” Hadden obtained a phone number for “Bill.”
- A known-associates search produced two potential matches for “Bill”: the actual Bill Lacy and Christopher Bates. Hadden did not investigate Bates’s residence, phone number, or connection to Augusta Lacy before using a law-enforcement photo database.
- Hadden conducted two short controlled buys (15–20 seconds each) from the person answering Bill’s phone; after the second buy Hadden compared photos and concluded Bates was the seller. Hadden then filed a criminal complaint and obtained a warrant for Bates. Bates was arrested and jailed for nearly five months.
- Bates’s counsel later produced records showing Bates was working in Florida and saw a doctor on March 23–24, 2010; the county prosecutor dismissed the charges and Bates was released. Bates sued Hadden and the City under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging malicious prosecution and unconstitutional confinement.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Hadden, holding he was entitled to qualified immunity and, on the merits, that he was not objectively unreasonable in relying on his identification and investigation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether malicious prosecution is a clearly established Fourth Amendment violation actionable under § 1983 | Bates: Albright and precedent put Hadden on notice that initiating prosecution causing incarceration can be a § 1983 claim | Hadden: Circuit precedent treats malicious prosecution as non-constitutional or at least not clearly established for § 1983 | Court: No clearly established Fourth Amendment right for malicious prosecution; qualified immunity for Hadden |
| Whether Hadden’s initiation of prosecution and maintenance of Bates’s identification caused unconstitutional confinement (lack of probable cause / objectively unreasonable conduct) | Bates: Photo evidence and dissimilarity to the real Bill Lacy create genuine disputes of material fact; Hadden’s identification was mistaken and self-serving | Hadden: He reasonably relied on his controlled-buys and photo comparison; mistake alone does not make conduct objectively unreasonable | Court: Officer’s identification was not so lacking in indicia of probable cause to be objectively unreasonable; qualified immunity granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031 (8th Cir. 2011) (standard of review for summary judgment in the circuit)
- Harrington v. City of Council Bluffs, Iowa, 678 F.3d 676 (8th Cir. 2012) (discusses whether malicious prosecution is a Fourth Amendment violation and qualified immunity)
- Winslow v. Smith, 696 F.3d 716 (8th Cir. 2012) (definition of clearly established rights for qualified immunity)
- Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266 (1994) (plurality opinion addressing malicious prosecution and palpable consequences)
- Kurtz v. City of Shrewsbury, 245 F.3d 753 (8th Cir. 2001) (malicious prosecution generally not a constitutional injury)
- Technical Ordnance, Inc. v. United States, 244 F.3d 641 (8th Cir. 2001) (malicious prosecution not a § 1983 constitutional claim)
- Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (1986) (objective-reasonableness standard for qualified immunity when warrant applications cause arrest)
- Saterdalen v. Spencer, 725 F.3d 838 (8th Cir. 2013) (officer may be mistaken without being objectively unreasonable)
- Brockinton v. City of Sherwood, Ark., 503 F.3d 667 (8th Cir. 2007) (probable-cause mistakes do not automatically render officer conduct unreasonable)