Panagoulakos v. Yazzie, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 25348

Panagoulakos was stopped for a faded temporary tag; he stated he had a firearm in the vehicle.
NCIC reported a protective order prohibiting firearm possession for Panagoulakos, but warned not to rely on the record alone and to confirm status with the entering agency.
Officer Yazzie arrived, Panagoulakos was in handcuffs; Galindo briefed Yazzie to confirm the order's validity and any exception.
Yazzie believed all protective orders barred firearm possession and prepared a criminal complaint when the order appeared to have no exception for Panagoulakos.
The protective order listed Panagoulakos as ex-boyfriend; the order noted a potential prohibition under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) but did not mark an intimate-partner finding on the form.
The district court concluded Yazzie had probable cause for the initial arrest but not for continued detention after reviewing the protective order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the detention after review of the order violated Panagoulakos' Fourth Amendment rights	Panagoulakos contends continued detention lacked probable cause after discovering the order's lack of an intimate-partner finding.	Yazzie acted under a reasonable belief that the order prohibited firearm possession; initial probable cause remained for detention.	Granted qualified immunity; no clearly established duty to release.
Whether the law was clearly established to require release after dissipation of probable cause	Panagoulakos argues clearly established law requires release when probable cause dissipates following review of a protective order.	There is no clearly established rule requiring release in these circumstances under the applicable circuit precedents.	No clearly established right to release; Yazzie entitled to qualified immunity.
Whether Thompson v. Olson governs clearly established duty to release in this context	Panagoulakos relies on Thompson to argue a duty to release when suspicion turns unfounded.	Thompson is not adopted by the Tenth Circuit in a published decision to impose such a duty here.	Thompson not adopted as controlling; no clearly established duty to release.

Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985) (final decision on qualified immunity appealability)
Wilson v. Montano, 715 F.3d 847 (10th Cir. 2013) (clearly established standard requires clear contours)
Cortez v. McCauley, 478 F.3d 1108 (10th Cir. 2007) (clearly established weight of authority; unpublished opinions limited)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (reaffirms ability to address prongs in any order)
Thompson v. Olson, 798 F.2d 552 (1st Cir. 1986) (affirmative duty to release only if suspicion beyond reasonable doubt is unfounded)
Romero v. Fay, 45 F.3d 1472 (10th Cir. 1995) (mentions Thompson standard (non-adoptive context))
Courtney v. Oklahoma, 722 F.3d 1216 (10th Cir. 2013) (denies qualified immunity where officer lacked lawful authority to extend detention)
Wilkins v. DeReyes, 528 F.3d 790 (10th Cir. 2008) (probable cause and unlawful detention principles)
U.S. v. Nicholson, 721 F.3d 1236 (10th Cir. 2013) (substantive law mistakes not excused under qualified immunity analysis)