David Evans v. Patrick Baker, 703 F.3d 636

Background

Three groups of Duke lacrosse players alleged municipal and police misconduct arising from the Mangum rape allegations and ensuing investigation in 2006.
Durham police used a non-testimonial order (NTO) and a search warrant to seize DNA and other evidence, following manipulated or corroborated but contested facts.
Nifong, the district attorney, assumed control of the case and pursued indictments despite exculpatory evidence and negative DNA results from both state and private labs.
Public statements by Durham officials during the investigation amplified the perceived strength of the case despite weaknesses in Mangum’s account.
Private laboratory results later conclusively excluded lacrosse players as DNA contributors, but this information was not disclosed to defendants or counsel.
Indictments were obtained against Finnerty, Seligmann, Evans, and later MQ; charges were dismissed after independent review found lack of credible evidence.
North Carolina officials were disciplined or disbarred in connection with the Mangum investigation and prosecution.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Evans plaintiffs state §1983 malicious prosecution claim	Officer causation kept in play despite independent prosecutor.	Prosecutor’s independent decision to indict breaks causal chain; officers not liable.	Liability limited; indictments break chain unless officer misled or pressured prosecutor.
Whether NTO-based seizures violate the Fourth Amendment due to allegedly false affidavits	Officers falsified statements in NTO affidavits to obtain the order.	Some alleged misstatements are insufficient to show a deliberate falsehood; materiality controls.	Four false statements deemed material; corrected affidavits still support probable cause/grounds; NTO claims dismissed.
Whether McFadyen state-law claims survive official immunity	Officers’ misconduct constitutes malicious acts; immunity not applicable.	Official immunity bars discretionary acts absent malice.	Most state-law claims barred; Evan’s malicious prosecution claim against Gottlieb and Himan survives under state law.
Whether officers can be liable for obstruction of justice under NC law	Fabrication/concealment of evidence and witness tampering by officers.	Courts do not recognize such a claim against police for actions during an investigation under NC law.	Court rejects common-law obstruction of justice claim against officers.
Whether the City’s immunities shield state constitutional claims	Immunity not applicable when City purchased liability policies; waivers exist.	Endorsements preserve governmental immunity; Everest policy does not apply; no waiver.	No waiver; state constitutional claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Key Cases Cited

Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1978) (two-prong test for knowingly/recklessly false statements and materiality)
Miller v. Prince George’s Cnty., 475 F.3d 621 (4th Cir.2007) (Franks materiality standard applied to suppression affidavits)
Torchinsky v. Siminski, 942 F.2d 257 (4th Cir.1991) (probable cause and reasonable grounds analysis in NTO context)
Simmons v. Poe, 47 F.3d 1370 (4th Cir.1995) (omission of exculpatory facts not per se misleading absent intent)
Colkley v. United States, 899 F.2d 297 (4th Cir.1990) (omission not sufficient for Franks absent intent to mislead)
Wray v. City of New York, 490 F.3d 189 (2d Cir.2007) (intervening acts of prosecutors may break the causal chain)
Barts v. Joyner, 865 F.2d 1187 (11th Cir.1989) (intervening prosecutorial decision can shield police from liability)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility pleading standard for supervisory liability)
Guthrie v. N.C. State Ports Auth., 299 S.E.2d 618 (NC App. 1983) (governmental immunity when waiver not shown)
Patrick v. Wake Cnty. Dep’t of Human Servs., 655 S.E.2d 920 (NC App. 2008) (immunity waivers via insurance endorsements careful interpretation)