Kaufman v. Higgs
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 22071
| 10th Cir. | 2012Background
- On March 14, 2009, a tan Infiniti hit an unoccupied car in a jewelry store parking lot; the Infiniti left the scene without information.
- Witnesses reported the Infinity’s license plate to the Colorado State Patrol; the plate belonged to Kaufman, the plaintiff.
- Troopers Higgs and Milner investigated, verifying Kaufman had a recent jewelry store purchase; Kaufman agreed to interview at home.
- During questioning, Kaufman invoked privilege and refused to identify the driver; troopers were told the driver’s identity was uncertain.
- Corporal Liska advised that Kaufman could be arrested for obstruction of justice if he continued to refuse; Kaufman declined to identify the driver and was arrested.
- Kaufman was charged under Colorado Rev. Stat. § 18-8-104(1) but the charges were later dropped; Kaufman sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest and Fifth Amendment retaliation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was probable cause to arrest Kaufman for obstruction | Kaufman argues silence alone is not an obstacle. | Defendants contend his refusal to identify the driver constitutes an obstacle under Colorado § 18-8-104(1)(a). | No probable cause; silence does not fit obstacle under statute. |
| Whether Kaufman’s right to remain silent was clearly established | Kaufman asserts clearly established Fourth Amendment rights against arrest for silence in a consensual encounter. | Defendants rely on Colorado statute interpretation and prior cases to justify arrest. | rights clearly established; arrest unreasonable. |
| Whether the law was established with respect to obscuring a police investigation | Dempsey cited to show mere verbal opposition is not obstruction. | Colorado statute interpretation would support obstruction with nonverbal acts. | Colorado Supreme Court’s Dempsey interpretation forecloses the defendants’ view; no arrestee risk. |
Key Cases Cited
- Koch v. City of Del City, 660 F.3d 1228 (10th Cir. 2011) (qualified immunity depends on probable cause and reasonableness in context)
- Dempsey v. People, 117 P.3d 800 (Colo. 2005) (mere verbal opposition not obstruction; requires physical interference)
- Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court, 542 U.S. 177 (2004) (identification obligations in detentions do not implicate compelled self-incrimination)
- Keylon v. City of Albuquerque, 535 F.3d 1210 (10th Cir. 2008) (probable cause standard for false arrest and clearly established rights)
- Cortez v. McCauley, 478 F.3d 1108 (10th Cir. 2007) (en banc; framework for qualified immunity analysis)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (two-step qualified immunity framework; clearly established rights at issue)