Smith v. Almada
640 F.3d 931
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Fire at Simply Sofas; arson investigators linked firebombs containing mail to Smith residence over five years.
- Investigator Almada focused on Smith; Nelson claimed Smith intimidated her; later evidence showed Nelson's gloating claim false.
- Almada sought and obtained arrest warrant; Smith was arrested and jailed through two trials that ended in mistrials.
- First trial mistrial; second trial mistrial; case dismissed under California law; Smith and spouse sued Almada under §1983 for false arrest, malicious prosecution, and Brady violation.
- District court granted summary judgment for Almada on all claims; on appeal, court affirmed that non-disclosed evidence would not have changed outcome.
- Dissents debated whether Brady claims can lie without a conviction and whether the withheld evidence was material.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause and qualified immunity for false arrest | Smith argues Almada misled for warrant; lack of probable cause if corrected facts are considered. | Warrant facially supported probable cause; even corrected, still probable cause; immunity for reasonable mistake. | Warrant could have had sufficient probable cause; district court proper on false arrest claim. |
| Malicious prosecution | False statements and nondisclosures caused prosecution without probable cause. | Probable cause remained; no malice proven; not liable for malicious prosecution. | Probable cause supported prosecution; no basis for malicious prosecution judgment. |
| Brady violation and its materiality | Nelson's false gloating and dumpster-fire prior descriptions were material exculpatory/impeachment evidence; nondisclosure prejudiced trial. | Evidence immaterial; nondisclosure did not prejudice outcome; not a Brady violation here. | Non-disclosed evidence not material; Brady claim fails. |
| Constitutional scope of Brady claims without conviction | Brady rights apply regardless of conviction; suppression harms right to fair trial. | Brady claims require conviction; post-conviction remedy limit should apply. | Majorityrejects Brady without conviction; rules can permit recovery via false arrest or malicious prosecution instead. |
Key Cases Cited
- Malley v. Briggs, 475 F.3d 335 (9th Cir. 1986) (arrest warrant reliance on probable cause with qualified immunity)
- Lombardi v. City of El Cajon, 117 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 1997) (materiality in falsified warrant applications; probable cause assessment)
- Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2009) (two false statements not material where independent corroboration exists)
- KRL v. Estate of Moore, 512 F.3d 1184 (9th Cir. 2008) (deliberate omissions in warrant applications; materiality assessment)
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999) (Brady materiality standard; prejudice requires reasonable probability of different outcome)
- Banks v. Dretke, 540 U.S. 668 (2004) (reasonable probability of different trial outcome; Brady materiality)
- Haupt v. Dillard, 17 F.3d 285 (9th Cir. 1994) (Brady claim not dependent on conviction; later overruled in part by Chavez)
- Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760 (2003) (limits of constitutional claims based on statements prior to conviction)