872 F.3d 640
5th Cir.2017Background
- Victim Murray Burr was murdered in 2004; investigators focused on Megan Winfrey, her brother Junior, and their father.
- Deputy Keith Pikett, a canine handler, conducted videotaped dog-scent lineups using the victim’s clothing scent, four suspect scent samples, and "filler" scents taken from jail inmates (some 1–2 years old) stored in his vehicle.
- Pikett’s dogs alerted to Megan’s and Junior’s scent samples; Pikett testified this indicated recent, significant contact with the victim’s clothing. No independent certification existed for Pikett or his dogs.
- The scent-lineup evidence was central to Megan’s convictions for capital murder and conspiracy; the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals later reversed and rendered acquittals, finding the scent evidence legally insufficient.
- Megan sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging due-process violations from use of unreliable, suggestive, and manipulated dog-scent lineups; Pikett moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity.
- The district court denied qualified immunity, citing expert criticism of Pikett’s methods; Pikett appealed, arguing the denial relied on disputed facts and precedent supporting immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pikett is entitled to qualified immunity for conduct in conducting and testifying about dog-scent lineups | Winfrey: Pikett knowingly used flawed, suggestive, and manipulated scent lineups amounting to a due-process violation | Pikett: Lineups were accurate; at most showed Megan had been in the house weeks earlier; precedent supports immunity | Dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction because Pikett’s arguments depend on resolving disputed facts in his favor rather than purely legal issues |
| Whether the factual disputes identified by the district court are material to qualified immunity | Winfrey: Expert evidence created a genuine dispute whether Pikett designed a flawed test and consciously influenced results | Pikett: Facts show only that Megan admitted prior presence in the house, so no constitutional violation | Court may not resolve genuine factual disputes on interlocutory appeal; jurisdiction lacking when appellant challenges factual genuineness |
Key Cases Cited
- Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299 (1986) (interlocutory appeal of qualified immunity rulings is permitted to the extent they turn on legal issues)
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985) (limitations on interlocutory appellate review of factual determinations in qualified-immunity context)
- Good v. Curtis, 601 F.3d 393 (5th Cir. 2010) (review scope limited to legal questions; must accept plaintiff’s version of facts)
- Curtis v. Anthony, 710 F.3d 587 (5th Cir. 2013) (addressing claims arising from dog-scent lineups)
- Winfrey v. State, 393 S.W.3d 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (state court reversed convictions, holding scent-lineup evidence legally insufficient)
- Reyes v. City of Richmond, 287 F.3d 346 (5th Cir. 2002) (defendant must accept plaintiff’s facts on appeal; scope of challenge affects jurisdiction)
- Cantu v. Rocha, 77 F.3d 795 (5th Cir. 1996) (qualified immunity standards regarding factual acceptance on appeal)