Jared Armstrong v. Gerard Asselin
734 F.3d 984
9th Cir.2013Background
- Parents of two 14-year-old boys complained that Jared Armstrong, an adult, befriended their sons online, gave them a book (Satan Burger) and other items, and continued contacting them after parents objected.
- Officer Asselin obtained Glass warrants to record conversations and then a search warrant (Nov. 21, 2005) for Armstrong’s home for evidence of disseminating indecent material to minors and stalking; arrest warrant issued simultaneously.
- Police later obtained warrants to search Armstrong’s car, workplace, and multiple electronic accounts; initial searches uncovered photos and files that led to an expanded child pornography investigation and further warrants.
- State criminal charges for dissemination were dismissed; the Alaska Superior Court suppressed evidence from the initial recorded call because the warrant affidavit relied on isolated excerpts of the book and did not show the work "taken as a whole" was indecent.
- Armstrong sued the officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming Fourth Amendment violations; the district court denied qualified immunity to the officers. The officers appealed.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding officers were entitled to qualified immunity under Messerschmidt v. Millender because they sought and obtained review and approval from prosecutors and neutral magistrates before executing warrants; later warrants were supported by stronger probable cause (child porn photos).
Issues
| Issue | Armstrong's Argument | Officers' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers are entitled to qualified immunity for obtaining/executing the warrants | Armstrong: affidavits lacked probable cause (excerpts of Satan Burger insufficient; should have evaluated the book "taken as a whole"); therefore immunity denied | Officers: they reasonably believed warrants were supported by probable cause and sought/obtained approval from prosecutors and neutral magistrates | Held: Reversed — officers entitled to qualified immunity under Messerschmidt because prosecutors and judges reviewed/approved the warrants and later warrants were supported by stronger evidence |
| Whether isolated excerpts of a book can establish probable cause for indecency/obscenity charges | Armstrong: no; municipal ordinance requires evaluating the work "taken as a whole," so excerpts cannot supply probable cause | Officers: probable cause requires a fair probability, not proof; excerpts plus surrounding facts could reasonably support a warrant application | Held: Court agreed excerpts alone could not establish obscenity, but that did not defeat qualified immunity given review by prosecutors/magistrates and other investigative facts |
| Relevance of Alaska Superior Court suppression ruling to federal § 1983 claim | Armstrong: suppression shows lack of probable cause, proving constitutional violation | Officers: suppression under state constitutional standard (Glass) doesn't automatically establish a federal Fourth Amendment violation; later warrants and prosecutor/judge review matter | Held: The state suppression under Alaska law is immaterial to the § 1983 qualified immunity analysis; federal probable-cause and Messerschmidt controls |
| Whether misrepresentations or omissions in affidavits negate immunity | Armstrong: alleges material omissions/misrepresentations | Officers: no record support for deliberate falsehoods or reckless omissions; no evidence that magistrates were rubber stamps | Held: Court found no record support for misrepresentation exception and did not apply it; immunity stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Messerschmidt v. Millender, 132 S. Ct. 1235 (2012) (prior review by prosecutors and a neutral magistrate generally shields officers from liability for warrants that turn out to be unsupported)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good-faith exception and deference to magistrate’s probable-cause determination)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (probable cause requires a fair probability, not proof)
- Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 U.S. 547 (1978) (when First Amendment–protected materials are implicated, judicial review of warrants must be exacting)
- Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) (establishes the obscenity "taken as a whole" standard)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) (qualified immunity protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law)