Stonecipher v. Valles, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 12384

Stoneciphers sued ATF agents under Bivens for Fourth and First Amendment violations stemming from a home search and Mr. Stonecipher’s arrest and prosecution.
Valles concluded Mr. Stonecipher had a Missouri misdemeanor DV conviction and sought a search warrant and charges under § 922(g)(9) based on that belief.
Missouri suspended-sentence in 2007 meant Stonecipher’s conviction was not a “conviction” under Missouri law, but this nuance was not recognized by the officers at the time.
Warrant affidavit omitted the suspended-imposition detail; NICS/NCIC reports and state documents conflicted about the conviction; an AUSA later reviewed and supported the claim.
After later learning the conviction did not qualify, prosecutors moved to dismiss the complaint, and the district court granted summary judgment for the officers on qualified-immunity grounds; on appeal the Tenth Circuit affirmed.
The court held there was arguable probable cause for the search and arrest, and no First Amendment retaliation, malice, or improper discovery issues altered the qualified-immunity analysis.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Probable cause for search and arrest	Stonecipher claims no probable cause.	Valles had arguable probable cause based on Missouri DV conviction.	Arguable probable cause found; qualified immunity affirmed.
Reckless disregard in warrant application	Valles knowingly omitted that the sentence was suspended.	Omission was negligent but not reckless; AUSA review supported reasonableness.	No reckless disregard; qualified immunity upheld.
Malicious prosecution	Filing the complaint without arguable probable cause shows malice.	Valles provided full materials and sought independent legal review; no malice shown.	No malicious-prosecution liability; qualified immunity maintained.
First Amendment retaliation	Prosecution retaliation for protected speech.	Arrest preceded speech; filing of complaint not shown to be retaliatory.	No retaliation; qualified immunity affirmed.
Discovery before summary judgment	Opportunity to gather more facts needed.	Qualified-immunity discovery stay appropriate; no showing discovery would rebut reasonableness.	No abuse of discretion; discovery denied in light of immunity.

Messerschmidt v. Millender, 132 S. Ct. 1235 (2012) (objectively reasonable basis for warrant; good-faith reliance on others' opinions)
Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987) (clearly established law standard for qualified immunity)
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (qualified-immunity protection for officials performing discretionary functions)
Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299 (1996) (discovery and pretrial considerations in immunity analysis)
Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985) (scope of immunity defense and pretrial procedures)
Kaufman v. Higgs, 697 F.3d 1297 (10th Cir. 2012) (arising standard for arguable probable cause under qualified immunity)
Cortez v. McCauley, 478 F.3d 1108 (10th Cir. 2007) (navigate probable cause in absence of perfect information)
Romero v. Fay, 45 F.3d 1472 (10th Cir. 1995) (police not required to credit suspect’s unverified explanations)
Pierce v. Gilchrist, 359 F.3d 1279 (10th Cir. 2004) (prosecutor’s decision not shielding other officials from liability)