Shimomura v. Carlson
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 22793
10th Cir.2015Background
- Shimomura, at DIA security, is involved in a heated TSA exchange overseen by Carlson; Davis observes from near the area.
- Davis arrests Shimomura for assault after Shimomura pushes a roller bag toward Carlson; contact uncertain from video angle.
- Following the arrest, Davis, Carlson, and other TSA personnel confer for about 90 minutes before formal charges are filed and later dismissed by the prosecutor.
- Shimomura sues under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens; district court grants summary judgment on qualified immunity and dismissal on other claims.
- Court addresses whether Davis had arguable probable cause, Carlson’s post-arrest misdeeds, a pre-arrest conspiracy, and procedural due-process claims under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
- The majority affirms dismissal; concurring judge dissents on Davis’s qualified immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Davis had qualified immunity for the arrest. | Shimomura argues no arguable probable cause. | Davis contends probable cause was arguable. | Yes; probable cause was at least arguable, supporting qualified immunity. |
| Whether Carlson can be liable for fabricating/exculpatory evidence to justify the arrest. | Carlson’s post-arrest conduct could not cause the arrest. | Carlson’s actions were not the cause of the arrest. | No plausible claim; Carlson not liable for unlawful arrest. |
| Whether there was a plausible pre-arrest conspiracy to arrest without probable cause. | There was a pre-arrest agreement between Davis and Carlson. | No plausible pre-arrest conspiracy given the arrest occurred within seconds of the incident. | No plausible conspiracy claim. |
| Whether Shimomura adequately pled a due-process claim under the Fifth/Fourteenth Amendments. | Due process rights violated by false arrest and charges. | Fourth Amendment governs pre-trial deprivations; no due-process claim. | No viable due-process claim; Fourth Amendment controls. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 854 F.2d 1206 (10th Cir. 1988) (probable cause standard in police arrest analysis)
- Kaufman v. Higgs, 697 F.3d 1297 (10th Cir. 2012) (arguable probable cause standard for qualified immunity)
- Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (1986) (qualified immunity framework for officers)