Clifford J Ochser v. Gerard funk/anthony Cruz, 266 P.3d 1061

In 2003, a superior court civil-contempt warrant for Ochser was quashed after notice was found not given, but certified copies of the quash order were kept by Ochser.
In May 2004, deputies Funk and Cruz arrested Ochser at his workplace pursuant to the still-listed but quashed warrant, after confirming its validity with MCSO’s OIC, without retrieving the quash order from Ochser’s office.
Ochser advertised a certified copy of the quash order from his office; deputies did not obtain it and relied on the warrant record and OIC confirmation.
Ochser was handcuffed, jailed overnight, and released the next day when the warrant’s quash status was confirmed as valid.
The trial court granted summary judgment to the deputies, ruling qualified immunity applies when the arrest is on a facially valid warrant; the appellate court affirmed the immunity ruling but the Arizona Supreme Court granted review to clarify the qualified-immunity scope.
The court held the Fourth Amendment was violated in that the deputies failed to undertake reasonable inquiry into the warrant’s validity, but they were entitled to qualified immunity because at the time prevailing law did not clearly establish the unconstitutionality given conflicting authorities.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the arrest violate the Fourth Amendment?	Ochser argues the arrest was unreasonable given the quashed warrant and available evidence.	Funk and Cruz contend the warrant’s facial validity justified the arrest and did not require further inquiry.	Yes, arrest was unreasonable under the circumstances.
Are the deputies entitled to qualified immunity and was the right clearly established?	Ochser contends the right was clearly established that officers must verify quashed warrants with readily available documents.	Funk and Cruz argue existing law did not clearly establish this exact standard in May 2004.	Yes, qualified immunity applies; the right was not clearly established at that time.

Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137 (1979) (no requirement to investigate every innocence claim; facial validity not dispositive)
Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (two-step qualified-immunity analysis)
al-Kidd, 131 S. Ct. 2074 (2011) (clarity of the right must be specific; broad claims insufficient)
Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (2002) (existing precedent must place the question beyond debate)
Berg v. County of Allegheny, 219 F.3d 261 (3d Cir. 2000) (documentary evidence may require verification when readily available)
Peña-Borrero v. Estremeda, 365 F.3d 7 (1st Cir. 2004) (verification after documents indicate warrant was likely executed warrants reasonable inquiry)
Hill v. Bogans, 735 F.2d 391 (10th Cir. 1984) (no duty to check warrants unless facially invalid)
Mitchell v. Aluisi, 872 F.2d 577 (4th Cir. 1989) (no obligation to verify when warrant facially valid)