Hopper v. Fenton, 665 F. App'x 685

Two girls (L.M., 8; K.G., 12) reported that Danny Hopper sexually assaulted K.G.; separate forensic interviews largely described the same core events (nude on bed, Hopper on top of K.G., oral sex) and L.M. as witness.
Officer Todd Fenton prepared a probable-cause affidavit to search Hopper’s home, executed the search, and arrested Hopper; a second affidavit was prepared the next day (no arrest warrant initially).
At preliminary hearing K.G. gave conflicting testimony and admitted she had lied about being in Hopper’s bedroom; prosecution dismissed charges without prejudice after Hopper had spent ~six months jailed.
Hopper sued City and Officer Fenton under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging Fenton omitted exculpatory or credibility-undermining facts from affidavits that would have destroyed probable cause.
District court granted summary judgment for defendants, holding that probable cause remained even accounting for omitted facts; Tenth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Hopper's Argument	City/Officer's Argument	Held
Whether omissions of facts that undermined victims’ credibility vitiated probable cause for arrest	Affidavits omitted facts (prior lies, recanted allegations, inconsistencies) that would negate a substantial probability that crime occurred	The affidavits still set forth a consistent core allegation sufficient to establish probable cause despite inconsistencies or omissions	Court held omissions would not have vitiated probable cause; core consistent account supported substantial probability of guilt
Whether inconsistencies about separate or peripheral allegations (e.g., rape of L.M., threats, porn) negate probable cause for the charged offense	These contradictions showed victims were unreliable, so probable cause was lacking	Discrepancies concerned peripheral matters and did not undermine the central allegation about K.G.’s assault	Court held such inconsistencies did not nullify probable cause because the central accusation remained consistent
Whether Officer Fenton is entitled to qualified immunity	Hopper argued constitutional violation occurred and immunity shouldn’t apply	Defendants relied on qualified immunity doctrine: officers protected unless plainly incompetent or knowingly unlawful	Court affirmed qualified immunity in favor of officers because their conduct did not plainly violate clearly established law

Kerns v. Bader, 663 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2011) (probable cause requires a substantial probability, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt)
Easton v. City of Boulder, 776 F.2d 1441 (10th Cir. 1985) (inconsistencies that do not undermine the core allegation do not vitiate probable cause)
Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (U.S. 1986) (qualified immunity protects officers unless plainly incompetent or knowingly violating the law)