Kermit Rogers v. Lee County, Mississippi
684 F. App'x 380
5th Cir.2017Background
- In 2009 officers executed a search warrant for 320 CR 401; they found cocaine in the house and 189.73 grams in a red truck parked by a separate building identified as 320A CR 401.
- State charges against Rogers concerned unrelated sales; federal prosecutors charged him with possession with intent to distribute based largely on drugs from the red truck.
- Rogers moved to suppress truck evidence arguing 320A was a separate property outside the warrant’s scope; the district court initially denied the motion without a hearing but the Fifth Circuit remanded for an evidentiary hearing.
- On remand the district court granted suppression, finding the truck and 320A were not within the warrant’s description, the officers’ claim to have telephoned the issuing judge was unproven, and the good-faith exception did not apply; the federal case was dismissed and Rogers spent ~452 days in custody.
- Rogers sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law against officers Warren and Howell and municipal defendants alleging unlawful search/seizure, false imprisonment, due process violations, failure to train/supervise, and malicious prosecution; summary judgment dismissed all claims.
- On appeal the Fifth Circuit reversed summary judgment as to qualified immunity for Warren and Howell on the warrantless search (holding genuine factual disputes precluded summary judgment) but affirmed dismissal of Rogers’s substantive due process and state-law malicious prosecution claims and all claims against other defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the warrantless search of the red truck violated the Fourth Amendment | Rogers: truck was on 320A, a separate property not covered by the warrant, so search was unlawful | Officers: believed 320A was an outbuilding/appurtenance of 320 and relied on registration check and judge’s alleged phone approval | Reversed as to qualified immunity; genuine disputes of material fact precluded summary judgment for officers on the warrantless search claim |
| Whether officers are entitled to qualified immunity for the warrantless search | Rogers: officers not objectively reasonable; no lawful basis or documented telephonic extension | Officers: objectively reasonable reliance on warrant language, tag return, and judge’s phone assent | Reversed — district court erred applying summary judgment; facts viewed for nonmovant show disputes on objective reasonableness |
| Whether Rogers stated a substantive due process claim based on alleged fabrication/misrepresentation | Rogers: officers deceived/procured false evidence, shocking the conscience | Officers: at most negligence or incompetence, not conscience-shocking fabrication or knowing falsehoods | Affirmed — evidence shows negligence, not the intent required for substantive due process violation |
| Whether state-law malicious prosecution claim survives MTCA police-function immunity | Rogers: officers acted maliciously in instituting prosecution | Officers: actions within scope of duty and protected by MTCA absent showing of malice or other exempted conduct | Affirmed — Rogers failed to raise genuine issue of malice, MTCA immunity applies |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (U.S. 1984) (establishes the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule)
- Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S. Ct. 1861 (U.S. 2014) (summary-judgment standard requires viewing facts in light most favorable to nonmovant)
- Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (U.S. 2002) (qualified immunity standard and clearly established law analysis)
- White v. State, 842 So. 2d 565 (Miss. 2003) (Mississippi treatment of telephonic warrants and factors for assessing objective reasonableness)
- Canales v. Stephens, 765 F.3d 551 (5th Cir. 2014) (false-evidence claim elements for due process violations)