Michael Melton v. Hunt County
875 F.3d 256
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- In June 2009 Deputy Kelly Phillips took an incident report after an assault victim identified his attacker as "Michael Melton." Phillips’s report listed the assailant as "Michael David Melton" with additional identifying details.
- The report was forwarded within the Sheriff’s Office; an investigator later obtained a sworn affidavit from the victim identifying "Mike Melton." A criminal complaint against “Michael Melton” was filed and a capias issued. Phillips did not sign or present that complaint.
- Melton (the plaintiff) was arrested in May 2012, detained 16 days, and charges were later dismissed for insufficient evidence. He sued Phillips under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a Franks-based Fourth Amendment violation (reckless/false information) that caused his arrest.
- Phillips moved for summary judgment asserting qualified immunity; the district court denied summary judgment on the Franks claim, finding material factual disputes about whether Phillips used a PID database and whether he recklessly supplied identifying information.
- The en banc Fifth Circuit reversed: it held that Phillips was entitled to summary judgment because even assuming Melton’s version of disputed facts, Phillips neither prepared, presented, nor signed the complaint (or provided information for use in it), so he could not be held liable under Franks; the opinion also held Melton failed to show a clearly established right.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Phillips can be liable under Franks for providing false/reckless information that led to Melton’s arrest | Phillips’s report (including use of middle name) came from Phillips’s PID/database use without verification, so he recklessly supplied false material used to obtain the complaint and warrant | Phillips did not prepare, present, or sign the complaint or warrant affidavit and did not provide information for the purpose of inclusion in the complaint; thus Hart/Hampton/Jennings bar liability | Phillips entitled to summary judgment — no Franks liability because he did not assist in preparing, present, or sign complaint or provide information for use in complaint |
| Whether factual disputes about Phillips’s use of a PID database are material to qualified immunity | Melton: those disputes show recklessness (required by Franks) and so preclude immunity | Phillips: even if reckless, liability requires participation in preparing or presenting the warrant/complaint; those disputed facts are immaterial to that legal requirement | Disputed PID-use facts are not material to the dispositive legal question; court construes facts for plaintiff but still grants summary judgment |
| Whether any constitutional right was clearly established when Phillips prepared the report | Melton: a reasonable officer would know reckless false identification leading to arrest violates the Fourth Amendment under Franks/Hart | Phillips: Hart, Hampton, Jennings show law did not clearly require liability for an officer who neither prepared/presented the warrant | Court: right not clearly established in these specific circumstances; existing precedents did not put reasonable officer on notice |
| Proper scope of Franks liability — who may be liable for false information that leads to a warrant | Melton & dissent: Franks/Hart permit liability for an officer who deliberately/recklessly supplies false material that is later used to obtain a warrant, even if not the affiant | Phillips & majority: Franks/Hart limited by Jennings/Hampton — liability requires assisting in preparation or presenting/signing the warrant application or providing information for that purpose | Majority adopts limiting rule: officer liable under Franks only if he provided information for use in preparing the application or prepared/presented/signed it; court grants immunity here |
Key Cases Cited
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (Fourth Amendment permits hearing when affidavit contains recklessly or knowingly false material that leads to a warrant)
- Hart v. O’Brien, 127 F.3d 424 (5th Cir. 1997) (officer who "deliberately or recklessly provides false, material information for use in an affidavit" may be liable under Franks)
- Hampton v. Oktibbeha Cty. Sheriff Dep’t, 480 F.3d 358 (5th Cir. 2007) (officers who neither prepared nor presented the warrant affidavit entitled to qualified immunity)
- Jennings v. Patton, 644 F.3d 297 (5th Cir. 2011) (reaffirming that an officer who did not prepare or present the warrant application is entitled to qualified immunity)
- Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (1986) (separate doctrine: liability for presenting an affidavit so lacking probable cause that belief in it is unreasonable)
- Michalik v. Hermann, 422 F.3d 252 (5th Cir. 2005) (for Malley-style claims, liability limited to affiant or person fully responsible for preparing the warrant application)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity analysis and interlocutory review principles)