Ryan Leaver v. Gary Shortess
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 22891
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- Leaver rented a Hertz Camry in Appleton, WI after an accident; the rental agreement listed a return date/place (Aug 12, extended to Aug 16; Hertz Appleton) but also a “maximum keep: 62 days” clause and other inconsistent terms.
- Leaver left Wisconsin and went to Montana; Hertz reported the car stolen on Aug 18 when it was not returned to Appleton.
- Outagamie County deputies located the car in Montana; Sergeant Gary Shortess reviewed reports and the rental contract and sent a theft referral to the district attorney on Sept 10, 2010.
- An ADA filed a criminal complaint and arrest warrant for theft by lessee in March 2011; Leaver was arrested in Montana in May 2011 and extradited to Wisconsin in August 2011.
- Leaver claims he returned the car to Hertz in Belgrade, Montana on Aug 26 and told the prosecutor; Shortess did not contact the Montana Hertz locations Leaver identified but confirmed with Hertz Appleton and insurer that it was not a one-way rental.
- Charges were ultimately dropped in Jan 2012; Leaver sued Shortess under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for allegedly omitting exculpatory facts from police reports and procuring an invalid warrant. The district court granted summary judgment for Shortess.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Shortess omitted material facts that deprived magistrate of probable cause for warrant | Leaver: Shortess intentionally/recklessly omitted that Leaver returned the car to Hertz Belgrade and that the "maximum keep" clause allowed longer possession, which would negate probable cause | Shortess: No evidence he knew Leaver returned the car to Hertz Belgrade; contract’s fixed return date/place and Hertz Appleton’s statements supported probable cause | No. No evidence Shortess knew of the Belgrade return; even if known, qualified immunity applies and omitted facts wouldn’t clearly negate probable cause |
| Whether qualified immunity shields Shortess | Leaver: Omission was reckless/intentional, so immunity shouldn’t apply | Shortess: Reasonable officer could interpret the contract as having a fixed expiration and rely on Hertz/insurer statements | Held for Shortess: qualified immunity protects reasonable mistakes about probable cause |
| Whether Fourth Amendment false-arrest claim applies post-warrant | Leaver: Arrest without probable cause via misleading reports violated Fourth Amendment | Shortess: Legal process existed (warrant); issue may be governed by malicious-prosecution principles | Court: Fourth Amendment claim may be limited after process begins but Shortess waived that defense; court still resolves based on materiality/qualified immunity |
| Whether Wisconsin law supports reading fixed return date as controlling despite conflicting clauses | Leaver: Contract’s max-keep clause could be read to permit longer possession | Shortess: Fixed return date and Robinson precedent support enforcing the listed return date | Court: Robinson supports enforcing the fixed return date; reasonable officer could rely on that interpretation |
Key Cases Cited
- Townsend v. Cooper, 759 F.3d 678 (7th Cir. 2014) (standard for reviewing summary judgment and construing evidence in § 1983 cases)
- Whitlock v. Brown, 596 F.3d 406 (7th Cir. 2010) (warrant validity presumption and material-omission test; qualified immunity context)
- Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (2007) (distinguishing false-arrest claims from malicious-prosecution claims after legal process begins)
- Bianchi v. McQueen, 818 F.3d 309 (7th Cir. 2016) (post-Wallace treatment of Fourth Amendment claims and malicious prosecution)
- Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987) (qualified immunity: objective reasonableness standard)
- Robinson v. State, 301 N.W.2d 429 (Wis.) (1981) (Wisconsin court upholding arrest based on a fixed return date despite clauses for additional rent)