Puller v. Baca
781 F.3d 1190
| 10th Cir. | 2015Background
- In summer 2009 Detective Paul Baca investigated ~25 racially motivated assaults/robberies in downtown Denver in which groups of African-American males targeted intoxicated Caucasian victims.
- On Aug. 23, 2009 a Caucasian victim was attacked by a group; a woman allegedly yelled “Get that white boy.” Victim reported multiple assailants.
- Witness interviews: Alawn Smith said the group left a club looking for a victim; Keisha Parker admitted using the victim’s credit card, said members (including Puller) followed her home, but gave ambiguous testimony about whether Puller fought; Landae Woods‑King positively identified Puller (by photo, “guy in the red shirt”) as among those who approached the victim.
- Baca applied for an arrest warrant charging Puller with aggravated robbery and a bias‑motivated crime; the affidavit recited Woods‑King’s identification but omitted Parker’s ambiguous remark that Puller “wouldn’t” fight because “his grandma would kill him.”
- A state court, without a Franks hearing, dismissed the charges concluding the affidavit omitted material exculpatory information; Puller then sued Baca under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest, malicious prosecution, fabrication of evidence, and constitutional claims.
- The federal district court granted Baca qualified immunity, finding that, even after adjusting the affidavit under Wolford (removing false statements and adding omitted material), probable cause existed for a bias‑motivated crime; the Tenth Circuit affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Puller’s Argument | Baca’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause for bias‑motivated crime | Affidavit omitted material exculpatory facts and included false statements, so no probable cause | Affidavit (with Woods‑King ID, victim statement, Smith and Parker info) gave more than bare suspicion | Held: Modified affidavit still showed probable cause under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18‑9‑121(2)(b) |
| Franks omission/false statement standard | Baca intentionally/recklessly omitted Parker’s disavowal and misstated Woods‑King’s identification | Any omission was at worst negligent; Woods‑King’s photo ID and other facts remain | Held: No showing of knowing/reckless omission; omission not fatal to probable cause |
| Qualified immunity | Baca violated Fourth Amendment rights by securing warrant without probable cause | Officer entitled to qualified immunity because probable cause existed | Held: Qualified immunity granted; Puller failed to meet heavy burden to show constitutional violation |
| Equal protection claim | Arrest was racially motivated | No evidence Baca had discriminatory intent or purpose | Held: Dismissed—Puller did not show discriminatory intent |
Key Cases Cited
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (affiant’s deliberate or reckless falsehoods in warrant affidavit permit challenge to probable cause)
- Wolford v. Lasater, 78 F.3d 484 (10th Cir. 1996) (test for evaluating affidavits with alleged omissions/false statements: remove falsehoods, add omitted material, then assess probable cause)
- Harman v. Pollock, 446 F.3d 1069 (10th Cir. 2006) (qualified immunity summary judgment review de novo)
- Medina v. Cram, 252 F.3d 1124 (10th Cir. 2001) (burden shifting and standards for qualified immunity at summary judgment)
- Kerns v. Bader, 663 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2011) (plaintiff’s burden to overcome qualified immunity and probable cause analysis)
- Wilkins v. DeReyes, 528 F.3d 790 (10th Cir. 2008) (probable cause requirement for malicious prosecution claims)
- Romero v. Fay, 45 F.3d 1472 (10th Cir. 1995) (false arrest claim requires lack of probable cause)
- Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366 (2003) (probable cause standard is a practical, common‑sense inquiry)
- Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730 (1983) (probable cause need not meet any precise quantification; reasonable belief standard)
- United States v. Dozal, 173 F.3d 787 (10th Cir. 1999) (mere association/propinquity insufficient alone for probable cause)
- United States v. Summers, 414 F.3d 1287 (10th Cir. 2005) (mere presence with co‑defendants insufficient for conviction; distinct from probable cause context)
- Koch v. City of Del City, 660 F.3d 1228 (10th Cir. 2011) (probable cause exists where reasonably trustworthy information would warrant belief that suspect committed the offense)