943 F.3d 532
1st Cir.2019Background
- Scott M. Jordan Sr. executed a broad financial power of attorney (POA) in May 2014 giving his son, Scott M. Jordan Jr., wide authority (including gifting or selling property, even to himself); the POA was drafted by Senior's attorney and Senior was described as alert when notarized.
- After disputes about transfers and sales Jordan made under the POA, Senior revoked the POA, complained to Waldoboro police, and alleged improper taking of a truck, firearms, and funds.
- Officer Hesseltine prepared an affidavit for a search warrant; police executed the warrant, found the truck title, firearms, and other items, and arrested Jordan; a grand jury later indicted him, but the prosecution was dismissed after Senior died.
- Jordan sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Maine law alleging the warrant affidavit contained deliberate or reckless misstatements and omissions that vitiated probable cause (search, false arrest, malicious prosecution, and related tort claims); the district court granted summary judgment to defendants.
- The First Circuit reversed in part: it held that material misrepresentations/omissions in the affidavit (proven at trial) could defeat probable cause and thus reinstated Fourth Amendment claims against Officer Hesseltine and Chief Labombarde; it affirmed summary judgment on malicious prosecution, most state torts, claims against other officers, and municipal liability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of search warrant (Franks challenge) | Hesseltine's affidavit contained a falsehood and material omissions (misstated POA origin; omitted that POA expressly allowed self-dealing; omitted Jordan's offer to turn firearms over), so corrected affidavit would lack probable cause | Probable cause need not exclude innocent explanations; omissions weren’t material; affidavit sufficiently supported warrant | Reversed as to search claims against Hesseltine and Labombarde: a jury could find affirmative misstatement and material omissions, that their correction would eliminate probable cause, and that they were made knowingly or with reckless disregard (Franks applies) |
| False arrest | Arrest lacked probable cause once affidavit errors are corrected; discovery (title signed by Senior) further undermines PC | Title and recovered items established probable cause for theft | Reversed as to false arrest claims for Hesseltine and Labombarde: a reasonable juror could find no probable cause |
| Malicious prosecution | Criminal process was wrongful and caused harm | Dismissal of prosecution because the victim died is not a "favorable termination" indicating innocence | Affirmed: dismissal for lack of victim/key witness (death) is not a favorable termination under governing law, so malicious prosecution claim fails |
| Qualified immunity & municipal liability | Officers and Town are liable; omissions and falsities were deliberate or reckless | Qualified immunity shields officers; Town had no policy causing violation | Qualified immunity not resolved in defendants’ favor here because deliberate falsification or designed-to-mislead omissions violate clearly established law; summary judgment affirmed for Town and for Officers Fuller and Santheson for lack of sufficient personal involvement |
Key Cases Cited
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (warrant must be voided if affidavit contains deliberate or reckless falsehoods or omissions that, when corrected, defeat probable cause)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good-faith exception to warrant requirement, but not when magistrate is misled by false or recklessly false affidavit)
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (1996) (probable cause is a legal determination reviewing the whole record)
- District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577 (2018) (probable cause does not require ruling out innocent explanations)
- Aponte Matos v. Toledo Dávila, 135 F.3d 182 (1st Cir. 1998) (officers may be liable under § 1983 for obtaining a warrant through material false statements)
- United States v. Vigeant, 176 F.3d 565 (1st Cir. 1999) (consider cumulative effect of omissions/misstatements in probable-cause evaluation)
- United States v. Tanguay, 787 F.3d 44 (1st Cir. 2015) (material omissions can support a Franks challenge if designed to mislead or made in reckless disregard)
- Burke v. Town of Walpole, 405 F.3d 66 (1st Cir. 2005) (recklessness as to omissions may be inferred when omitted facts are critical to probable cause)
- Hernandez‑Cuevas v. Taylor, 723 F.3d 91 (1st Cir. 2013) (elements of a § 1983 malicious prosecution claim and discussion of favorable-termination requirement)
- Manuel v. City of Joliet, 137 S. Ct. 911 (2017) (pretrial detention can violate the Fourth Amendment whether it precedes or follows start of legal process)
- McDonough v. Smith, 139 S. Ct. 2149 (2019) (favorable-termination requirement applies to certain § 1983 fabricated-evidence/malicious-prosecution claims)