Parkey v. Sample
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 22113
7th Cir.2010Background
- Sample, a Marijuana Eradication Coordinator, relied on a DEA tip that Parkey had received marijuana cultivation supplies.
- Sample obtained Parkey's Indiana criminal history record after the DEA tip.
- Parkey's residence allegedly had concealed grow-operation indicators, including basement window coverings.
- Trash pulls on May 10 and June 6, 2005 yielded marijuana stems, plant remnants, and marijuana cigarettes; items also matched Parkey's address.
- Sample sought and obtained a state-court search warrant based on the affidavit, leading to a search that seized ten marijuana plants and resulted in charges later dismissed; Parkey then sued Sample under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and for libel; the district court granted summary judgment for Sample, which Parkey appealed only as to the § 1983 claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there probable cause for the search warrant? | Parkey argues misstatements or omissions undermine probable cause. | Sample contends the affidavit, including tips, trash findings, and observations, suffices for probable cause. | No genuine issue; probable cause established. |
| Did Parkey show that any misstatement affected the magistrate's decision to issue the warrant? | Parkey alleges Sample knowingly or recklessly misled the magistrate. | Parkey failed to show falsities were material to probable cause. | Parkey failed to create a material issue; no evidence of deliberate or reckless misstatement established. |
| Should the court address qualified immunity given the probable cause ruling? | If there was no probable cause, immunity should not apply. | Immunity analysis not reached unless material facts in dispute on probable cause. | Court did not reach qualified immunity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Molina ex rel. Molina v. Cooper, 325 F.3d 963 (7th Cir.2003) (false statements must be material to probable cause for a warrant if challenged on § 1983)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (Supreme Court) (summary judgment standard: movant may prevail by showing absence of evidence)
- Suarez v. Town of Ogden Dunes, 581 F.3d 591 (7th Cir.2009) (reaffirming summary judgment de novo standard and burden on movant)
- Knight v. Wiseman, 590 F.3d 458 (7th Cir.2009) (summaries judgment evidence standard in §1983 cases)