Quinn v. Young
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 3959
| 10th Cir. | 2015Background
- On July 30, 2010 APD officers (Young and Melendrez) conducted a backpack larceny sting: they placed a backpack (containing cigarettes, beer and an APD laptop) near an ATM, observed a man (Quinn), a woman (Gonzalez) and a minor approach and leave with it, followed them to a diner, then arrested Quinn and Gonzalez without a warrant after Gonzalez opened the laptop. Charges were dismissed ~2 days later.
- Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging: warrantless arrest without probable cause (Fourth Amendment), entrapment, substantive due process (reputational harm), and malicious prosecution; they named the officers and municipal defendants.
- The district court denied the officers qualified immunity (explicitly on the Fourth Amendment claim), finding a factual dispute as to probable cause and concluding clearly established law required probable cause as to mens rea (intent to permanently deprive) for larceny arrests.
- The officers appealed interlocutorily on qualified immunity grounds. The Tenth Circuit limited review to legal issues and framed the key question whether clearly established law in July 2010 put a reasonable officer on notice that arrests in this larceny sting lacked probable cause as to specific intent.
- The Tenth Circuit reversed as to the Fourth Amendment (granting qualified immunity), dismissed the appeal as to entrapment for lack of jurisdiction (plaintiffs had pleaded entrapment only as a municipal claim), and remanded for the district court to state reasons and reconsider qualified immunity as to malicious prosecution and substantive due process claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers lacked probable cause to arrest for larceny in the backpack sting (Fourth Amendment) | Quinn/Gonzalez: officers arrested without probable cause and lacked evidence of specific intent to permanently deprive owner | Young/Melendrez: probable cause existed objectively in the sting context; qualified immunity applies because law was not clearly established | Reversed district court; officers entitled to qualified immunity because no clearly established law in July 2010 put officers on notice that arrests in this sting lacked probable cause as to mens rea |
| Whether extant precedent clearly established that probable cause must include mens rea for specific-intent crimes in a sting context | Plaintiffs: Miller and other authorities put officers on notice that probable cause must include specific intent | Officers: identified lack of on-point or substantially corresponding precedent for sting operations; general Fourth Amendment principles are too high-level | Court: district court erred by citing general principles (Keylon) and Miller; no substantially corresponding, clearly established precedent in sting context existed |
| Whether entrapment claim is reviewable on this interlocutory appeal | Plaintiffs: entrapment arises from the Tact Plan and implicates officers/municipal liability | Officers: appeal limited to their qualified-immunity claim; entrapment was alleged only against municipal defendants | Dismissed this portion of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because entrapment was pleaded as a municipal claim and officers are not appealing municipal liability here |
| Qualified immunity as to malicious-prosecution and substantive due process claims | Plaintiffs: claims stated and qualified immunity should be denied | Officers: asserted qualified immunity but district court did not explain its denial for these claims | Remanded: Tenth Circuit has jurisdiction but instructs district court to explicitly analyze qualified immunity for these claims and then rule anew |
Key Cases Cited
- Keylon v. City of Albuquerque, 535 F.3d 1210 (10th Cir. 2008) (general Fourth Amendment probable-cause discussion; court held facts did not support probable cause)
- State v. Miller, 412 P.2d 240 (N.M. 1966) (warrant-issue rule: complaints must show probable cause as to required specific intent when element exists)
- Sanchez v. Melendrez, 934 F. Supp. 2d 1325 (D.N.M. 2013) (district court on similar APD sting: criticized Tact Plan and found no clearly established law for stings)
- Jackson v. Capraun, [citation="534 F. App'x 854"] (11th Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (officers given qualified immunity in a bicycle-sting; no clearly established law that such stings violate constitutional rights)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 131 S. Ct. 2074 (U.S. 2011) (qualified immunity standard: plaintiff must show violation of clearly established right)
- Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (U.S. 2004) (an arrest is valid if circumstances objectively justify it even if officer cited the wrong offense)