Talley v. USA
1:16-cv-02327
| D. Colo. | Nov 6, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Steven Talley was arrested twice (Sept. 15, 2014 and Dec. 10, 2015) based on warrants derived from Detective Jeffrey Hart’s affidavits alleging Talley committed bank robberies on May 14 and Sept. 5, 2014; all criminal charges were eventually dismissed.
- The May robbery produced surveillance footage, a swab and a fingerprint; witnesses gave generalized descriptions. The Sept. robbery also had surveillance footage and generated Crime Stoppers tips naming Talley.
- Hart prepared a six-photo array and (contrary to protocol) both created and administered it to teller Bonita Shipp, pointing to Talley’s photo and eliciting an 85% identification; Hart’s IAB violation for the procedure was later sustained.
- Other purported identifications included Talley’s ex-wife and a roommate; FBI image analyses and cell‑tower pings produced mixed results (FBI found Sept. photo similar to Talley but excluded him for the May robbery; an FBI height analysis later undermined identity). Alibi evidence led to dismissal of the first set of charges; additional evidence led to dismissal after the second arrest.
- Talley sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting false arrest/false imprisonment, excessive force, First Amendment retaliation, malicious prosecution (Franks theory), and a Monell claim against the City; defendants moved to dismiss; some claims/defendants were later narrowed by stipulation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hart’s arrest‑warrant affidavits contained knowingly or recklessly false statements or omissions (Franks claim) | Hart omitted material facts (e.g., suggestive ID, mixed/exculpatory FBI results, weak tip verification) that defeated probable cause | Hart contends affidavit gave a reasonable basis for probable cause from tips, photo ID, and investigative leads | Court found Franks allegations insufficient to overcome qualified immunity; claims against Hart dismissed on qualified immunity grounds |
| Qualified immunity for Detective Hart | Talley argues Hart violated clearly established law by knowingly/recklessly misleading magistrates | Hart argues no clearly established law put him on notice that his conduct (as alleged) violated constitutional rights | Court held Hart is entitled to qualified immunity; Talley failed to show a violation of clearly established law |
| First Amendment retaliation claim (reopening investigation after Talley’s IAB complaint) | Talley contends Hart/Howard retaliated for his IAB complaint by renewing the investigation and seeking new charges | Defendants argue their conduct was lawful investigative follow‑up and not clearly unconstitutional | Court concluded Talley failed to show clearly established First Amendment law violation; claim against Hart/Howard dismissed (Howard dismissed without prejudice) |
| Municipal liability (Monell) against City and County of Denver | Talley alleges City had policies/customs leading to constitutional violations | City argued no underlying constitutional violation or no municipal policy; sought dismissal | Court denied dismissal of Monell claim; Monell claim survives for further development |
Key Cases Cited
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (establishes standards for challenging warrant affidavits based on false statements or deliberate omissions)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (explains qualified immunity and the discretionary sequence of constitutional‑violation and clearly‑established‑law inquiries)
- White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548 (2017) (directs that clearly established law must be particularized to the facts and not defined at high level of generality)
- Wilkins v. DeReyes, 528 F.3d 790 (10th Cir. 2008) (discusses fabrication of evidence and context for police‑misconduct claims)