Davis v. Hodgkiss, 11 F.4th 329

Background

Plaintiffs Elizabeth Saucedo and Tettus Davis sued Sergeant Jonathon Hodgkiss under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging Hodgkiss used false statements in a warrant affidavit (a Franks claim) to search Saucedo’s residence and arrest them.
Hodgkiss relied on an SOI interview (plaintiffs dispute key SOI statements and whether a post-interview drive identifying the house occurred) plus other investigative facts in his affidavit.
Independent investigative facts included deputy reports of heavy, short-term traffic at the residence, surveillance of Davis coming and going, drugs and currency found in a vehicle Davis drove, Davis’s prior narcotics convictions, and a June 2015 trash run that produced baggies testing positive for narcotics and mail addressed to Saucedo.
A district judge later suppressed the search-evidence, finding the recorded SOI interview did not reflect the affidavit’s asserted SOI statements; state charges were dismissed.
The magistrate judge denied Hodgkiss qualified immunity at summary judgment, finding material facts in dispute about falsehoods and concluding that excising those alleged misstatements would leave an affidavit insufficient for probable cause. Hodgkiss appealed the qualified-immunity denial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Scope of interlocutory review of denial of qualified immunity	District court correctly denied immunity because factual disputes (about falsity/recklessness) preclude summary judgment	Appellate review is limited to legal questions; court may decide whether, assuming plaintiffs’ facts, the remaining affidavit establishes probable cause	Fifth Circuit: Review limited to legal issues; factual disputes remain for district court, but appellate court may decide legal sufficiency of affidavit after excising alleged falsehoods
Probable cause after excising alleged false statements (Franks necessity element)	Excised affidavit lacks sufficient evidence; no fair probability of finding contraband at residence	Even without the alleged false statements, remaining facts (trash run, surveillance, vehicle evidence, prior convictions, traffic patterns, mail) supply probable cause	Held: With alleged false material excised, the affidavit still established probable cause; no constitutional violation under Franks
Validity of relying on single trash run plus corroborating evidence	Single trash run alone is weak; plaintiffs argue remaining evidence insufficient when SOI statements removed	Trash run findings, linked to residence, plus other corroborating facts suffice to support probable cause	Held: Single trash run coupled with other corroborating facts (vehicle search, observations, prior convictions, mail to residence) was sufficient to support probable cause
Qualified immunity outcome	Plaintiffs: factual disputes about falsity/recklessness bar immunity	Hodgkiss: no Fourth Amendment violation because probable cause remained => entitled to immunity	Held: Because there was no constitutional violation (probable cause remained), Hodgkiss entitled to summary judgment (qualified immunity)

Key Cases Cited

Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1978) (establishes elements for challenging warrant based on knowingly or recklessly false statements)
Kinney v. Weaver, 367 F.3d 337 (5th Cir. 2004) (interlocutory review accepts plaintiffs’ version of facts and limits appellate review to legal questions)
Cole v. Carson, 935 F.3d 444 (5th Cir. 2019) (describes qualified-immunity inquiry and limits on reviewing factual disputes)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S. 2009) (courts may choose which qualified-immunity prong to address first)
United States v. Kendrick, 980 F.3d 432 (5th Cir. 2020) (reciting Franks elements and necessity analysis)
United States v. Sibley, 448 F.3d 754 (5th Cir. 2006) (trash-run evidence can connect occupants and residence to prior drug activity to support probable cause)
United States v. Froman, 355 F.3d 882 (5th Cir. 2004) (probable cause is a legal, commonsense inquiry for courts to decide)