Durham v. Horner
759 F. Supp. 2d 810
W.D. Va.2010Background
- Horner, a Wise County deputy sheriff and Regional Drug Task Force member, arranged three drug buys using confidential informants.
- After first buy, CI identified the plaintiff as the seller and Horner obtained the plaintiff's SSN and Big Stone Gap address from the Task Force.
- Horner used law enforcement databases to link the plaintiff to the alleged drug activity and to the real suspect's identifiers (age, prior addresses, Mississippi charges).
- Three indictments were returned against the plaintiff based on the CI's information and lab analyses; the plaintiff later surrendered when charged in Wise County.
- Charges were dropped in March 2007 after it was determined the plaintiff was not the correct person; the civil suit followed.
- The plaintiff asserts § 1983 Fourth Amendment false arrest due to lack of probable cause and a state-law malicious prosecution claim; Horner seeks summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Horner violated Fourth Amendment by initiating prosecution without probable cause | Durham contends lack of probable cause given misidentification | Horner acted in good faith on CI information and available records | Qualified immunity shields Horner; no genuine issue of probable cause defeating immunity |
| Whether Horner is entitled to qualified immunity on the § 1983 claim | Durham argues available facts showed misidentification and should negate immunity | Horner reasonably relied on CI reports and data; actions were in good faith | Horner entitled to qualified immunity; no violation of clearly established rights |
| Whether the malicious prosecution claim survives | Durham asserts no probable cause and malicious intent | There was probable cause based on CI reliability, SSN corroboration, and prior residency/charges | Probable cause existed; malicious prosecution claim fails |
| Whether Virginia gross-negligence claim is cognizable against police in this context | Durham includes gross negligence as a theory | Virginia law does not recognize gross negligence claims against police officers for investigations | Gross negligence claim is not cognizable |
Key Cases Cited
- Brooks v. City of Winston-Salem, N.C., 85 F.3d 178 (4th Cir.1996) (recognizes § 1983 malicious-prosecution framework)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (U.S. 1982) (qualified immunity standard for government officials)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard requiring no genuine disputes of material fact)
- Maciariello v. Sumner, 973 F.2d 295 (4th Cir.1992) (bright-line approach to officer liability in gray areas)
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (U.S. 1985) (immunity is an immunity from suit, not just liability)
- Gaut v. Pyles, 212 Va. 39 (Va. 1971) (definition of probable cause under Virginia law)
- Lee v. Southland Corp., 219 Va. 23 (Va. 1978) (malice may be inferred from lack of probable cause)