Jose Garcia v. Shawn Posewitz, 79 F.4th 874

Background

A 15-year-old, G.C., reported that Jose Garcia sexually assaulted her in a resort pool; Detective Shawn Posewitz interviewed G.C. and her mother, Monique.
Posewitz reviewed poor-quality surveillance footage that was inconclusive; Monique told Posewitz G.C. had trouble recalling details and feared the footage might contradict her.
Assistant DA Richard Spoentgen drafted a criminal complaint (reviewed with minor edits by ADA Linda Hoffman) that omitted some details from Monique’s interview and the surveillance assessment; a circuit court commissioner found probable cause and Garcia was arrested.
At a preliminary hearing a judge found probable cause; later the DA dismissed charges for lack of sufficient credible evidence, and Garcia sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Fourth Amendment false arrest based on intentional/reckless omissions from the complaint.
The district court granted summary judgment for defendants on qualified immunity grounds; the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that any constitutional right was not clearly established in these circumstances.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether prosecutors/detective omitted material facts from the complaint, violating the Fourth Amendment	Garcia: Omitted facts (inconclusive video, inconsistencies between G.C. and mother, no eyewitnesses, victim memory problems/fear, mother’s behavior) were material and would negate probable cause	Defendants: Omitted details did not negate probable cause; G.C.’s detailed identification and statement supported probable cause; credibility is for courts, not officers	Court: Even assuming omissions, a reasonable officer could still conclude probable cause existed; not an obvious constitutional violation
Whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity (was the constitutional right clearly established?)	Garcia: Omissions amounted to a clearly established violation; analogues exist	Defendants: No closely analogous precedent; reasonable officials could believe arrest lawful given victim’s statement	Court: Plaintiffs failed to identify controlling analogous cases or an obvious violation; defendants entitled to qualified immunity
Whether issue preclusion from the state preliminary hearing bars relitigation of probable cause	Garcia: § 1983 inquiry is broader; preliminary hearing ruling inadequate to preclude	Defendants: Preliminary hearing established probable cause	Court: Declined to resolve (qualified immunity dispositive); did not rely on issue preclusion
Whether claims against ADA Hoffman survive appeal	Garcia: Sued all three defendants	Hoffman: On appeal Garcia failed to brief claims against her	Court: Garcia waived any appellate argument against Hoffman by failing to develop it

Key Cases Cited

Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (qualified immunity framework)
Whitlock v. Brown, 596 F.3d 406 (7th Cir. 2010) (omitted facts are material if their inclusion would negate probable cause)
Hart v. Mannina, 798 F.3d 578 (7th Cir. 2015) (test materiality by asking whether hypothetical affidavit including omitted facts would establish probable cause)
District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577 (2018) (probable cause is a probability/substantial chance; totality-of-circumstances inquiry)
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (probable cause is a fluid, totality-of-circumstances concept)
Beauchamp v. City of Noblesville, 320 F.3d 733 (7th Cir. 2003) (victim identification can support probable cause despite inconsistencies)
Coleman v. City of Peoria, 925 F.3d 336 (7th Cir. 2019) (credibility assessments are for courts, not officers)
Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148 (2018) (clearly established rights must be defined with specificity)
City of Escondido v. Emmons, 139 S. Ct. 500 (2019) (requires particularized analysis of whether a right was clearly established in comparable circumstances)
Cibulka v. City of Madison, 992 F.3d 633 (7th Cir. 2021) (plaintiff bears burden to show analogous precedent or that violation was obvious)