James Morrow v. Barry Washington
672 F. App'x 351
5th Cir.2016Background
- Plaintiffs (four motorists) sued Barry Washington, a Tenaha, Texas deputy city marshal, alleging he participated in an interdiction program that racially profiled motorists and seized cash for officers’ benefit; only Washington remained as a defendant on appeal.
- Plaintiffs pressed § 1983 claims for Fourth Amendment (unreasonable searches/seizures) and Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection), plus a § 1985(3) conspiracy claim.
- Washington moved for summary judgment asserting qualified immunity, but limited his appeal to the Fourth Amendment claims and related conspiracy allegations insofar as they bear on Fourth Amendment liability.
- The magistrate denied qualified immunity and the district court adopted that recommendation; the magistrate’s R&R appears to rely in part on evidence of officers’ subjective intent (statistical evidence, admissions, lack of dashcam) when finding disputed facts.
- The Fifth Circuit found ambiguity whether the magistrate relied impermissibly on subjective-intent evidence for Fourth Amendment analysis and remanded for the district court to clarify whether disputed facts material to objective-reasonableness exist apart from subjective-motive evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiffs alleged a Fourth Amendment violation sufficient to defeat qualified immunity | Stops/searches were objectively unreasonable and caused constitutional injury | Fourth Amendment inquiry must be objective; evidence of officers’ subjective intent is not material to Fourth Amendment analysis | Remanded: court must decide whether material factual disputes exist as to objective reasonableness without relying on subjective-intent evidence |
| Whether conspiracy evidence may be used to defeat qualified immunity on Fourth Amendment claims | Conspiracy evidence (statistical patterns, admissions) shows coordinated unconstitutional stops | Conspiracy/subjective-intent evidence is irrelevant to Fourth Amendment objective-reasonableness inquiry | Conspiracy evidence is relevant only after finding an objectively unreasonable Fourth Amendment violation; district court should not rely on subjective intent to resolve objective-reasonableness |
| Scope of review on interlocutory appeal of denial of qualified immunity | Plaintiffs urge factual disputes preclude immunity | Defendant limits review to legal question of whether disputed facts are material for summary judgment | Court reviews legal questions de novo but cannot resolve genuine fact disputes; remand for clarification of factual basis |
| Effect of a finding on initial stop versus later search/seizure (civil exclusionary rule) | Plaintiffs treat all stages as tied together | Defendant contends qualified immunity may apply to later stages even if initial stop is problematic | Court instructs to consider probable cause at each stage; civil cases do not apply the exclusionary rule automatically, so later-stage immunity possible |
Key Cases Cited
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) (Fourth Amendment reasonableness is objective; officer’s subjective intent is irrelevant)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) (qualified immunity standard explained)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (facts viewed in light most favorable to nonmovant except where video resolves dispute)
- Pfannstiel v. City of Marion, 918 F.2d 1178 (5th Cir. 1990) (in qualified immunity, first assess objective reasonableness, then consider conspiracy)
- Hale v. Townley, 45 F.3d 914 (5th Cir. 1995) (conspiracy claim under § 1983 requires an actual § 1983 violation)
- Wren v. Towe, 130 F.3d 1154 (5th Cir. 1997) (exclusionary rule rejected in civil § 1983 suits against officers)
- Lytle v. Bexar County, 560 F.3d 404 (5th Cir. 2009) (interlocutory review of qualified immunity rulings limited to legal questions)