Richard Betker v. Rodolfo Gomez, 692 F.3d 854

Betker was shot during a no-knock TEU raid on his home after Gomez obtained a no-knock warrant based on Capol's tip that Sharon Betker was a felon in possession of a firearm.
Capol later swore that most information Gomez presented in the warrant affidavit was not true.
Gomez drafted and submitted the affidavit; the district court denied his qualified-immunity motion after discovery.
Capol previously told Gomez that Sharon had a gun and that the Betkers possessed firearms, but Capol lacked first-hand knowledge and recited information from others.
The warrant affidavit contained disputed statements (e.g., Capol observed Sharon with a gun within five days) that a reasonable jury could deem false or reckless.
The court ultimately held that qualified immunity was not appropriate because disputed facts could show Gomez knowingly or recklessly misstated material facts, undermining probable cause.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Gomez knowingly or with reckless disregard make false statements in the warrant affidavit?	Betker claims Gomez lied or was reckless in his statements about Capol's observations.	Gomez contends the statements were reasonable descriptions or non-material;	Yes; a reasonable jury could find false or reckless statements.
Would probable cause exist for the no-knock warrant without the disputed statements?	Without the false statements, probable cause would be lacking.	Probable cause could be supported by other information.	Probable cause would be lacking absent the disputed statements.
Was the right to be free from unreasonable searches clearly established for this scenario at the time of the raid?	The controlling precedents showed that false statements negate probable cause and defeat immunity.	Qualified immunity could apply if the facts, even if disputed, supported probable cause.	No; the right was clearly established, so Gomez was not entitled to immunity.

Knox v. Smith, 342 F.3d 651 (7th Cir. 2003) (reckless disregard for truth defeats immunity where statements are necessary to probable cause)
Beauchamp v. City of Noblesville, Ind., 320 F.3d 733 (7th Cir. 2003) (reckless disregard shown by doubting truth or undisclosed facts)
Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (1986) (no immunity where no reasonable belief supported by probable cause)
Lawson v. Veruchi, 637 F.3d 699 (7th Cir. 2010) (materiality of disputed statements to probable cause; jury resolves credibility)
U.S. v. Peck, 317 F.3d 754 (7th Cir. 2003) (hypothetical affidavit test for totality of circumstances in probable cause analysis)
Olson v. Tyler, 771 F.2d 277 (7th Cir. 1985) (immunity not available when probable cause rests on knowingly false info)
Juriss v. McGowan, 957 F.2d 345 (7th Cir. 1992) (false statements erode immunity when used to arrest)
Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (Supreme Court 1978) (serious error in affidavit can render warrant invalid if false statements not corrected)
Kentucky v. King, 131 S. Ct. 1849 (2011) (two requirements: reasonableness and probable cause for searches; scope of warrant)