Gadd v. Campbell, 712 F. App'x 796

While under a Utah temporary protective order (TPO) that barred contact with the petitioner except text-only communications regarding children and parent time, Gadd sent two non-threatening text messages to two of his children.
Gadd’s wife reported the texts; Officer Jonathan Campbell investigated and submitted screening paperwork/police report to the municipal prosecutor, who later filed misdemeanor charges for violating the TPO.
At arraignment, the court bailiff forcibly fingerprinted Gadd over his objection; the municipal charges were later dismissed without prejudice for insufficient evidence after Gadd’s attorney provided the TPO.
Gadd sued Campbell under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a Fourth Amendment violation based on Campbell’s alleged false or reckless misrepresentation of the TPO’s meaning to the prosecutor.
The district court denied Campbell’s Rule 12(b)(6) qualified-immunity dismissal; Campbell appealed interlocutorily.
The Tenth Circuit reversed, holding Gadd failed to show clearly established law that Campbell’s alleged conduct violated the Fourth Amendment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of qualified immunity was improper	Gadd: Campbell caused prosecution by misrepresenting the TPO’s scope, leading to an unlawful seizure (fingerprinting)	Campbell: Qualified immunity applies; no clearly established law showed his conduct was unconstitutional	Reversed: Gadd failed to identify clearly established law; qualified immunity applies
Whether Campbell’s conduct violated the Fourth Amendment	Gadd: False/reckless statements to prosecutor led to prosecution without probable cause and pretrial seizure	Campbell: At best a legal interpretation of TPO; prosecutor could/should have reviewed the TPO independently	Court did not decide on the merits; decision turned on lack of clearly established precedent
Whether prior precedent clearly established liability for misinterpreting a legal document to a prosecutor	Gadd: Relied on cases holding officers liable for fabricating or misrepresenting evidence	Campbell: Those cases involved fabricated facts, not legal interpretation; not analogous	Held: No sufficiently analogous precedent to place reasonable officer on notice
Whether Stonecipher or other Tenth Circuit cases established the law here	Gadd: Stonecipher and other Tenth Circuit decisions support denying immunity	Campbell: Stonecipher is distinguishable and postdates or is not directly on point	Held: Stonecipher and cited cases are not sufficiently analogous to clearly establish a Fourth Amendment violation in this context

Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (jurisdiction for interlocutory appeals of qualified immunity)
Mayfield v. Bethards, 826 F.3d 1252 (10th Cir. 2016) (Rule 12(b)(6) review and qualified-immunity framework)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard for plausibility)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (gives courts discretion to address prongs of qualified immunity in either order)
Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305 (per curiam) (clearly established standard for qualified immunity)
White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548 (do not define clearly established law at high level of generality)
Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (clearly established law must be particularized)
Pierce v. Gilchrist, 359 F.3d 1279 (10th Cir. 2004) (officer/agent liability where evidence was fabricated)
Wilkens v. DeReyes, 528 F.3d 790 (10th Cir. 2008) (denying immunity where officers allegedly fabricated witness statements)
Robinson v. Maruffi, 895 F.2d 649 (10th Cir. 1990) (upholding verdict where false testimony was used to prosecute)
Stonecipher v. Valles, 759 F.3d 1134 (10th Cir. 2014) (distinguishable; did not clearly establish officer liability for nuanced legal-interpretation errors)
Manuel v. City of Joliet, 137 S. Ct. 911 (Fourth Amendment covers pretrial deprivations of liberty)