Omar Paez v. Claudia Mulvey
915 F.3d 1276
| 11th Cir. | 2019Background
- In 2011 three Golden Beach police officers (Paez, Peters, Diaz) were arrested on public-corruption charges after MDPD Det. John Loyal and FDLE SA Claudia Mulvey submitted probable-cause affidavits; charges were dropped in 2014.
- Affidavits alleged officers repeatedly failed to report off-duty work and thus avoided paying a $5/hour administrative fee and in some instances were “double-compensated” for overlapping on-duty/off-duty hours. Affidavits charged organized scheme to defraud under Fla. Stat. § 817.034(4) and related offenses.
- Plaintiffs sued under § 1983 (malicious prosecution / Fourth Amendment) and state malicious-prosecution law, alleging Loyal and Mulvey (and supervisors Breeden and Sullivan) omitted exculpatory facts from the affidavits (CBA language, statements that fees could be paid late, payments/overpayments, and testimony about “flex time”).
- District court denied qualified-immunity dismissal for the investigating officers and some supervisory claims, concluding the complaint plausibly alleged intentional or reckless omissions that would negate probable cause.
- On interlocutory appeal, the Eleventh Circuit accepted pleaded facts as true (including that omissions were intentional/reckless) but held that even with the omitted information included the affidavits still established probable cause to believe the officers committed an organized scheme to defraud, so there was no Fourth Amendment violation and defendants were entitled to qualified immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether alleged intentional/reckless omissions from arrest-warrant affidavits negated probable cause for Fourth Amendment/malicious-prosecution claims | Omissions (CBA, payments, late-payment practice, flex-time explanations) were material and would have negated probable cause | Even including omitted facts, affidavits still showed a systematic failure to report off-duty hours and thus probable cause for organized-scheme-to-defraud charges | Held for defendants: omissions did not eliminate probable cause; no Fourth Amendment violation; qualified immunity applies |
| Whether arguable probable cause for any charged offense defeats § 1983 malicious-prosecution claim | Plaintiffs: affidavits lacked probable cause given omitted exculpatory facts | Defendants: probable cause (or at least arguable probable cause) for organized-scheme-to-defraud suffices to defeat § 1983 claim | Held: probable cause existed for organized-scheme-to-defraud; that defeats the § 1983 malicious-prosecution claim |
| Whether supervisory defendants liable where investigators did not violate the Constitution | Plaintiffs: supervisors approved affidavits despite knowledge of exculpatory facts and are liable | Defendants: supervisory liability requires an underlying constitutional violation by subordinates | Held: no underlying Fourth Amendment violation, so no supervisory liability; supervisors entitled to qualified immunity |
| Viability of state-law malicious prosecution claims against investigating officers after federal analysis | Plaintiffs: state claims survive because affidavits omitted material exculpatory evidence | Defendants: state claims fail if probable cause existed; federal appellate review permits resolution | Held: state common-law malicious prosecution claims fail for same reason as § 1983 claims (probable cause existed) |
Key Cases Cited
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (establishes qualified immunity framework)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (warrant affidavits must be truthful; material intentional/reckless omissions can violate Fourth Amendment)
- Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (objective-reasonableness standard for warrant-based immunity)
- District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577 (probable cause requires only a substantial chance of criminal activity)
- Gates v. Illinois, 462 U.S. 213 (totality-of-the-circumstances probable-cause analysis)
- Manners v. Cannella, 891 F.3d 959 (11th Cir.) (discusses probable-cause standard and qualified immunity)
- Madiwale v. Savaiko, 117 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir.) (arguable probable cause for one offense can defeat Fourth Amendment claims as to others)
- Kelly v. Curtis, 21 F.3d 1544 (11th Cir.) (intentional or reckless omissions/misstatements may violate Fourth Amendment)