Cynthia Archer v. John Chisholm, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 16493

Background

Cynthia Archer, a senior policy aide to Governor Scott Walker, was targeted in a Milwaukee County John Doe investigation into alleged misconduct involving county contracts and campaign-related fundraising; she was never charged.
The John Doe probe, supervised by a judge, expanded from missing charity funds to bidding irregularities (Reuss Plaza lease and 2009 housekeeping contract) and potential unlawful campaign coordination.
Investigators executed search warrants on Archer’s county office (Dec 2010) and her Madison home (Sept 2011); electronic devices and records were seized and she was interviewed with immunity.
Archer sued six officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming (inter alia) First Amendment retaliation, Fourth Amendment unlawful search/seizure and false arrest, and conspiracy.
The district court dismissed on immunity grounds (absolute and qualified) and allowed sealed district-court preservation of John Doe records; Archer appealed.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding qualified immunity (and related immunity issues) barred Archer’s claims and upholding the district court’s limited preservation order.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Absolute immunity for prosecutors’ John Doe investigation roles	Prosecutors acted as investigators, not prosecutors, so no absolute immunity	Their actions were prosecutorial and conducted under judicially supervised John Doe proceedings	Court avoided absolute-immunity ruling; disposed on qualified immunity grounds instead (no need to decide absolute immunity definitively)
Fourth Amendment: validity & particularity of warrant	Warrant issued by non-neutral judge; affidavit contained omissions/falsehoods; warrant overly broad	Warrant was issued by a neutral magistrate, affidavit supplied probable cause, and warrant reasonably particular; Leon good-faith applies	Qualified immunity: warrant valid and particular enough; affidavit omissions did not negate probable cause; execution within scope; no Fourth Amendment violation
Fourth Amendment: manner of search & detention (excessive force/illegal detention)	Early-morning armed entry, battering ram, reporter present, occupants detained unreasonably	Tactics were reasonable given investigation; occupants may be detained during lawful search (Summers)	No objectively unreasonable force; detention during valid warrant execution lawful; claim fails
First Amendment retaliation	Investigation and detention were motivated by Archer’s political work on Act 10 and support for Walker	Archer’s Act 10 work was part of her official duties (public-employee speech); no clearly established right to be free from investigation under these circumstances	Claim not clearly established under Garcetti/Hartman line; qualified immunity applies; retaliation claim fails

Key Cases Cited

Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (absolute prosecutorial immunity for prosecutorial functions)
Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (distinguishing prosecutorial vs. investigative functions for immunity)
Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (public-employee speech: speech as employee vs. citizen)
Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (challenge to warrant affidavit based on false statements)
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (objective good-faith reliance on warrant shields officers)
Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (bad-faith warrant procurement and qualified immunity standard)
Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (relation of retaliatory prosecution claims to First Amendment)
Rakovich v. Wade, 850 F.2d 1180 (7th Cir.) (investigation in retaliation for protected speech could be actionable in some contexts)
State ex rel. Two Unnamed Petitioners v. Peterson, 866 N.W.2d 165 (Wis.) (John Doe II: First Amendment limits on coordination laws and ordered return/destruction of seized materials)
State ex rel. Three Unnamed Petitioners v. Peterson, 875 N.W.2d 49 (Wis.) (modification of destruction order; records to be filed with clerk)