Fadwa Safar v. Lisa Tingle
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10114
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiffs Jan Eshow and Fadwa Safar obtained a refund at Costco following store instructions; Costco later mistakenly reported the refund as fraud and the Arlington police sought arrest warrants based on Officer Rodriguez’s affidavit.
- Costco retracted its allegation the next day and informed Officer Rodriguez, but Rodriguez did not correct her affidavit or seek withdrawal of the warrants.
- Months later Eshow was arrested on the outstanding warrant and Safar was later arrested in Maryland on her outstanding warrant; Safar was jailed for several days and strip-searched before being transferred and released; both charges were later nolle prossed.
- Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (alleging unconstitutional arrest / deprivation of liberty under the Fourth Amendment) and asserted a state-law gross negligence claim for failure to withdraw Safar’s warrant.
- District court dismissed: Rodriguez entitled to qualified immunity; prosecutor Lisa Tingle entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity on § 1983 claims; state gross negligence claims dismissed. Plaintiffs appealed.
- Fourth Circuit: affirmed the immunity rulings on the § 1983 claims (qualified immunity for Rodriguez; absolute immunity for Tingle) and remanded, directing the district court to dismiss the state-law claims without prejudice so plaintiffs may pursue them in state court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Officer Rodriguez violated the Fourth Amendment by failing to withdraw warrants after learning charges were unfounded | Rodriguez had a duty to take steps to revoke warrants once probable cause dissipated; failing to do so caused unconstitutional seizure | No clearly established constitutional duty required a police officer to unilaterally withdraw or initiate dismissal of a magistrate-issued warrant; qualified immunity protects Rodriguez | No clearly established right; Rodriguez entitled to qualified immunity (Fourth Amendment claim barred) |
| Whether prosecutor Tingle is immune for failing to withdraw an arrest warrant after learning the allegation was unfounded | Withdrawing a stale warrant is ministerial/administrative and not entitled to absolute immunity; plaintiff left without redress if immunity applies | Decision whether and when to move to dismiss a warrant is core advocacy/trial function requiring legal judgment; absolute prosecutorial immunity applies | Tingle entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity on § 1983 claim; claim dismissed |
| Appropriateness of pleading a Due Process claim as alternative to Fourth Amendment challenge | Plaintiff argued omissions violated substantive due process | Court: Fourth Amendment governs unreasonable seizures; due process not the proper vehicle for such pretrial omissions | Due process not an independent basis; Fourth Amendment is the operative constitutional provision |
| What happens to state-law gross negligence claims after federal claims are dismissed on immunity grounds | Plaintiffs seek to keep state tort claims in federal court | Defendants moved to dismiss; district court dismissed on merits; defendants argued no recognized duty under Virginia law | Fourth Circuit reversed insofar as dismissal on merits and remanded with instruction to dismiss state claims without prejudice (allowing plaintiffs to pursue them in state court) |
Key Cases Cited
- Owens v. Baltimore City State’s Attorneys Office, 767 F.3d 379 (4th Cir. 2014) (pleading standards and qualified immunity context)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard for plausibility)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (Fourth Amendment as the primary protection against unreasonable seizures)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity two-step analysis)
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) (absolute prosecutorial immunity for advocacy functions)
- Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118 (1997) (prosecutorial immunity limits when acting as a complaining witness vs. seeking warrants)
- Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335 (2009) (functional approach: administrative acts closely tied to advocacy may be absolutely immune)
- Taylor v. Waters, 81 F.3d 429 (4th Cir. 1996) (officer’s failure to terminate post-arrest proceedings after recantation did not violate Fourth Amendment)
- Brooks v. City of Winston-Salem, 85 F.3d 178 (4th Cir. 1996) (continuing pretrial detention reasonable when initial probable cause existed)