913 F.3d 640
7th Cir.2019Background
- Rainsberger discovered his 88-year-old mother Ruth injured and called 911; she later died of blunt force trauma to the head.
- Detective Charles Benner investigated, interviewed family, and prepared two probable-cause affidavits that led to Rainsberger’s arrest and two months' detention; charges were later dismissed.
- Rainsberger alleges Benner knowingly or recklessly included false statements and omitted exculpatory facts in the affidavit (e.g., mis-timed phone call, misleading Kroger surveillance description, omission of missing purse/medication and DNA results, and mischaracterizing family conduct).
- The district court denied Benner qualified immunity on summary judgment, finding a reasonable jury could conclude Benner lied or omitted material facts and that probable cause would not exist without them.
- On appeal, Benner conceded the disputed facts for interlocutory review and argued any falsehoods/omissions were not material to probable cause or, alternatively, that he is entitled to qualified immunity because a reasonable officer could have believed the hypothetical affidavit established probable cause.
- The Seventh Circuit held that removing false statements and adding omitted exculpatory facts leaves the affidavit insufficient for probable cause; thus Benner violated the Warrant Clause and is not entitled to qualified immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether knowingly or recklessly including false statements or omitting material facts in a probable-cause affidavit violated the Fourth Amendment | Benner’s lies/omissions were material; stripping lies and adding omitted exculpatory facts destroys probable cause | Even conceding falsity, the false/omitted items were not material to establishing probable cause | Held: The affidavit, purged of falsehoods and supplemented with omitted exculpatory facts, did not establish probable cause; 4th Amendment violated |
| Whether the court may consider inculpatory facts not in the affidavit when evaluating the warrant affidavit’s validity | N/A (Rainsberger relies on the four-corners hypothetical approach) | Officer urges courts may consider extra-affidavit inculpatory evidence to defend qualified immunity | Held: No — review of the magistrate’s probable-cause decision is limited to what was presented; extrinsic inculpatory facts cannot salvage a defective affidavit |
| Whether Benner is entitled to qualified immunity if a reasonable officer could have thought the hypothetical affidavit showed probable cause (“arguable probable cause”) | N/A | A reasonable officer could have reasonably but mistakenly concluded the hypothetical affidavit established probable cause, so immunity applies | Held: Rejected — if a defendant knowingly or recklessly included material falsehoods, qualified immunity is not available; the materiality of false statements need not be subject to a "reasonable officer" mistake test |
| Whether omission-based claims require assessment of whether a reasonable officer would have known the omitted fact was material | Omitted facts were material | If materiality of omission was not clearly established, qualified immunity should apply | Held: Materiality of omissions is part of qualified immunity; but Benner did not argue those omissions were not clearly established as material, and the court found probable cause lacking regardless |
Key Cases Cited
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (affidavit containing deliberate or reckless false statements may be impeached; warrant must be tested on truthful showing)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity two-pronged framework; courts may address prongs in any order)
- District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577 (2018) (probable cause assessed under totality of the circumstances)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (objective reasonableness standard for qualified immunity)
- Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (1986) (qualified immunity protects objectively reasonable legal judgments by officers)
- Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (1949) (probable cause requires more than bare suspicion)
- Whitlock v. Brown, 596 F.3d 406 (7th Cir. 2010) (withholding material information from warrant application violates Fourth Amendment)
- Betker v. Gomez, 692 F.3d 854 (7th Cir. 2012) (use hypothetical affidavit: remove false statements and add omitted facts to test materiality)
- Hart v. Mannina, 798 F.3d 578 (7th Cir. 2015) (false statements in warrant affidavit violate Fourth Amendment when material)