Hernandez-Cuevas v. Taylor
723 F.3d 91
1st Cir.2013Background
- Hernandez-Cuevas alleges officers' misconduct caused three months of pretrial federal detention without probable cause, enabling a Fourth Amendment Bivens/§1983 claim.
- A joint FBI–Puerto Rico task force surveilled a money laundering scheme in 2004; UNSUB #3 was linked to Hernandez-Cuevas later by tainted identification.
- Martz and UI-1 allegedly tainted a photo array to identify Hernandez-Cuevas as UNSUB #3, despite mismatches with the surveillance description.
- Taylor allegedly included the tainted identification in a warrant affidavit; arrest followed, and Hernandez-Cuevas was detained until release in 2008 and charges were dismissed.
- District court held the claim could proceed for the three-month detention, treated as a Fourth Amendment violation; accrual based on termination in favor and not time-barred by statute.
- Court adopts a purely constitutional Fourth Amendment approach to a pretrial-malicious-prosecution claim and remands for further proceedings, rejecting qualified immunity at this stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fourth Amendment protects against pretrial detention without probable cause. | Hernandez-Cuevas argues the right persists during pretrial detention. | Martz/Taylor contend the right is not cognizable under the Fourth Amendment in this context. | Yes; Fourth Amendment protects against sustained pretrial seizures. |
| Whether a §1983/Bivens claim can vindicate that Fourth Amendment right in pretrial detention. | Plaintiff may recover for unlawful detention via §1983/Bivens. | Defendants dispute availability of a constitutional tort separate from common law. | Plaintiff may pursue a constitutional claim under §1983/Bivens. |
| Whether the complaint plausibly shows a Fourth Amendment violation based on tainted photo array and false warrant statements. | Allegations show tainted photo identification and false statements linked to detention. | Arguments rely on conclusory or insufficient pleadings under Iqbal. | Complaint plausibly states a Fourth Amendment violation. |
| Whether the officers are entitled to qualified immunity on the Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim. | Knowledge of falsity and deliberate framing violated clearly established rights. | Qualified immunity should bar claims if not clearly established. | Denied; district court's denial of immunity affirmed pending further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1994) (limits substantive due process for malicious prosecution; dicta on Fourth Amendment avenue)
- Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2007) (accrual rules for false arrest under §1983)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1978) (probable-cause voiding when officer knowingly/recklessly misstates facts in warrant affidavit)
- Evans v. Chalmers, 703 F.3d 636 (4th Cir. 2012) (Fourth Amendment false detention with malice theory; liability for officers who influenced prosecutors)
- Sykes v. Anderson, 625 F.3d 294 (6th Cir. 2010) (malice/causation in pretrial detention claims under Fourth Amendment)