Merchant v. Bauer
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 8469
| 4th Cir. | 2012Background
- Feb. 2008: 911 caller reports a black Mercedes with flashing blue lights; Bauer investigates for Fairfax County, VA.
- Vehicle registered to Dr. Rose Merchant (Prince George's County, MD); Merchant is Deputy Director of PG County Dept. of Corrections; Merchant's husband is a felon.
- Bauer learns Merchant and her husband drove the Mercedes to Virginia; Bauer anthesizes to call to 7-Eleven; Merchant and husband are persuaded to come to Fairfax for inspection.
- Bauer believes Merchant impersonated a police officer during the 7-Eleven encounter; he concludes probable cause exists to charge under Va. Code § 18.2-174; warrants issued Feb. 13, 2008; Merchant surrenders Feb. 19, 2008.
- Merchant is charged in Virginia, but the Fairfax County court dismisses the Impersonation charge; Merchant sues in Maryland federal court (transferred to E.D. Va.) for §1983 Fourth Amendment claim and state malicious prosecution; Bauer moves for summary judgment on qualified immunity.
- The district court grants summary judgment on malicious prosecution but denies qualified immunity for the §1983 claim; Fourth Circuit reviews de novo under collateral order jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether arrest without probable cause violated the Fourth Amendment. | Merchant: arrest lacked probable cause. | Bauer: reasonable belief of probable cause; relied on English v. Commonwealth and prosecutor input. | No, probable cause lacking; Fourth Amendment violation established. |
| Whether the right was clearly established to defeat qualified immunity. | Merchant's right not to be seized without probable cause was clearly established. | Bauer: reasonable mistake given evidence and prosecutor input could be lawful. | Right was clearly established; Bauer not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage. |
Key Cases Cited
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (Supreme Court 2001) (two-step qualified immunity framework (considers violation and clearly established rights))
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (Supreme Court 1982) (policy of immunity for reasonable mistakes in legal determination)
- Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (Supreme Court 1964) (probable cause standard for seizures)
- Wilson v. Kittoe, 337 F.3d 392 (4th Cir. 2003) (arrest reasonable only if based on probable cause)
- English v. Commonwealth, 598 S.E.2d 322 (Va. Ct. App. 2004) (Impersonation Statute conviction; relevant precedent on impersonation)
- Torchinsky v. Siwinski, 942 F.2d 257 (4th Cir. 1991) (consultation with supervisor/prosecutor supports probable cause finding in some contexts)
- Wadkins v. Arnold, 214 F.3d 535 (4th Cir. 2000) (prosecutor approval considerations in qualified immunity analysis; distinguished by exculpatory evidence presence)
- Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (Supreme Court 1986) (warrant applications must show indicia of probable cause)
- Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85 (Supreme Court 1981) (probable cause must be particularized to the person)
- Messerschmidt v. Millender, U.S. , 132 S. Ct. 1235 (Supreme Court 2012) (later decision on warrants; not controlling here)