Deanna Copeland v. Lucas Wicks, 2015 Mo. LEXIS 141

DFS referred a report of non-accidental injuries to a two-year-old to a Lincoln County deputy (Detective) after a children’s hospital found bruising to the child’s eye and lip.
Detective interviewed Mother; she said she came home at 4:30 a.m., found the child alone in a bathroom, was angry, picked the child up “a little rough,” said the eye bruise could have come from the doorknob, and said she “heaved” the child into the bathtub causing the child to slip and bruise her lip.
Detective’s probable cause affidavit described Mother as having “slammed” the child’s head into the doorknob and having “thrown” the child into the bathtub; a prosecutor charged Mother with felony child abuse (knowingly inflicting cruel and inhuman punishment). Mother was later acquitted.
Mother sued Detective for malicious prosecution and under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging intentional or recklessly false statements in the affidavit and malicious motive.
The trial court granted summary judgment for Detective based on qualified immunity; the Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) Malicious prosecution — whether Detective knowingly/ recklessly made false statements and acted with malice	Detective knowingly or recklessly misstated her admissions (characterizing “could have” as she “slammed” and “heaved” as she “threw”), showing malice	Statements were not materially false or, even if inaccurate in wording, were not motivated by malice; Detective was performing investigative duties	Judgment for Detective: no evidence of malice; malicious prosecution claim fails
2) § 1983 / qualified immunity — whether affidavit contained falsehoods that vitiate probable cause and preclude immunity	False or reckless statements in affidavit deprived the warrant/charge of probable cause, so no qualified immunity	Even removing alleged false statements, the corrected affidavit and photos supplied an objectively reasonable basis (arguable probable cause) to believe a crime occurred; qualified immunity protects Detective	Judgment for Detective: corrected affidavit still supports probable cause for some offense; qualified immunity applies

ITT Commercial Fin. Corp. v. Mid-Am. Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371 (Mo. banc 1993) (summary judgment standard and de novo review)
Sanders v. Daniel Int’l Corp., 682 S.W.2d 803 (Mo. banc 1984) (malicious prosecution disfavored; definition of malice in criminal-prosecution context)
State ex rel. O’Basuyi v. Vincent, 434 S.W.3d 517 (Mo. banc 2014) (elements of malicious prosecution)
Edwards v. Gerstein, 237 S.W.3d 580 (Mo. banc 2007) (strict compliance required for malicious prosecution actions)
Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (1986) (qualified immunity for officials; standard for maliciously false affidavits)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity framework)
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (objective immunity standard)
Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (warrants based on affida vits with deliberate falsehoods or reckless disregard violate Fourth Amendment)
Small v. McCrystal, 708 F.3d 997 (8th Cir. 2013) (removing false material from affidavit to assess probable cause)
Bagby v. Brondhaver, 98 F.3d 1096 (8th Cir. 1996) (same approach to corrected affidavit)
Dowell v. Lincoln Cnty., Mo., 762 F.3d 770 (8th Cir. 2014) ("arguable probable cause" standard for qualified immunity)
Keil v. Triveline, 661 F.3d 981 (8th Cir. 2011) (qualified immunity if probable cause existed for any offense, even if not the charged one)