LeRod Butler v. City of Detroit, Mich.
936 F.3d 410
| 6th Cir. | 2019Background
- In Dec. 2015 Det. Radames Benitez swore an affidavit seeking a warrant to search 12011 Bramell based largely on a confidential informant who had provided reliable tips in prior narcotics investigations.
- The affidavit tied three addresses together (9542 Burnette, 9561 Burnette, and 12011 Bramell) but repeatedly misused the label “target location,” creating impossible observational claims (Burnette and Bramell are ~8 miles apart).
- Benitez described surveillance, vehicle identifications, and a controlled buy at 9542 Burnette; he also asserted he followed an associate to 12011 Bramell and observed the associate enter the house—assertions Butler disputes and says are false.
- Police executed the warrant at Butler’s home (12011 Bramell); Butler, a retired, cooperative homeowner, was handcuffed and allegedly slammed against a wall, aggravating prior neck/back injuries; no charges were filed and seized items produced no charges against Butler.
- Butler sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming (inter alia) false statements in the warrant affidavit (unreasonable search) against Benitez and excessive force (the “slam”) against Sgt. Meadows; district court denied qualified immunity on those claims; officers appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Benitez made deliberate falsehoods or acted with reckless disregard in the warrant affidavit | Butler: affidavit contains material falsehoods (misstated observations, false claim someone entered his home) sufficient under Franks/Vakilian to overcome immunity | Benitez: errors are innocent/sloppy mistakes; no evidence he knew statements were false or recklessly made | Reversed: Butler failed to make the required substantial showing of deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard; Benitez entitled to qualified immunity on false-affidavit claim |
| Whether the alleged false statements were material to probable cause (Franks second prong) | Butler: excising false statements leaves insufficient probable cause to search Bramell | Benitez: even without alleged falsehoods, informant tip plus corroboration (surveillance, vehicle registration, controlled buy) established probable cause for Bramell | Reversed: remaining affidavit supported probable cause; materiality prong failed; Benitez entitled to qualified immunity |
| Whether Sgt. Meadows is entitled to qualified immunity for allegedly slamming Butler against a wall during search execution | Butler: he was compliant but was slammed, aggravating injuries—use of force excessive and clearly established unconstitutional | Meadows: single shove during a raid is not necessarily excessive; reasonable officers could be uncertain | Affirmed (district court denial stands): taking plaintiff’s version, gratuitous shove of a compliant, unarmed homeowner is clearly established excessive force; Meadows not entitled to immunity on that claim |
| Standard for defeating qualified immunity in false-affidavit Fourth Amendment claims | Butler: factual contradictions and security-camera claim create inference of deliberate/reckless falsehood | Defendants: plaintiff must present evidence of officer’s knowledge or access to contradictory information; mere contradiction is insufficient | Court: applies Franks/Vakilian—plaintiff must present substantial evidence of officer’s knowing or reckless falsity and materiality; mere factual contradiction without evidence of officer’s state of mind fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (criminal defendant may attack affidavit veracity; requires substantial showing of deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard and materiality)
- Vakilian v. Shaw, 335 F.3d 509 (6th Cir. 2003) (applies Franks standard in § 1983 false-affidavit/qualified immunity context)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (totality-of-the-circumstances test for probable cause; corroboration of informant can suffice)
- Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (1986) (qualified immunity protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law)
- Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148 (2018) (qualified immunity protects conduct that does not violate clearly established law)
- Hill v. McIntyre, 884 F.2d 271 (6th Cir. 1989) (Franks analysis in § 1983 context; materiality inquiry)
- Wesley v. Campbell, 864 F.3d 433 (6th Cir. 2017) (evidence an officer omitted or should have known contradicted informant can satisfy reckless-disregard showing)
- United States v. Hines, 885 F.3d 919 (6th Cir. 2018) (informant’s basis of knowledge and corroboration can support probable cause)
- United States v. Brown, 732 F.3d 569 (6th Cir. 2013) (admission of drafting error does not alone show reckless or deliberate falsity)