844 F.3d 1235
10th Cir.2017Background
- Vogt, a Hays police officer, applied for a Haysville police job and disclosed keeping a work-obtained knife; Haysville conditioned the offer on his reporting/returning the knife to Hays.
- Vogt reported to Hays; Hays’ chief directed written reports and compelled further statements during an internal inquiry and to retain employment; Hays used those statements to find additional evidence and referred the matter to the Kansas Bureau of Investigation.
- Haysville rescinded its job offer after the criminal investigation began; Vogt was later charged in state court but charges were dismissed for lack of probable cause following a probable-cause hearing.
- Vogt sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Fifth Amendment violations based on compulsion and subsequent uses of his compelled statements in investigatory steps, charging, and the probable-cause hearing; district court dismissed for failure to state a claim.
- The Tenth Circuit panel reversed dismissal as to the City of Hays (municipal liability), affirmed dismissal as to Haysville and four officers (qualified immunity and no compulsion by Haysville), and held that the Fifth Amendment protects against use of compelled statements in a probable-cause hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Fifth Amendment’s "in any criminal case" reach pretrial proceedings (probable-cause hearing)? | Vogt: "criminal case" includes pretrial proceedings; Fifth Amendment bars use of compelled statements at probable-cause hearings. | Defendants: Fifth Amendment is a trial right; usage before trial does not trigger the privilege. | Held: Fifth Amendment covers at least probable-cause hearings; use there can violate the privilege. |
| Are the individual Hays/Haysville officers entitled to qualified immunity for compelling statements later used pretrial? | Vogt: Officers coerced statements and are liable because those statements were used in the criminal case. | Officers: Law was not clearly established; qualified immunity protects them. | Held: Officers entitled to qualified immunity because pretrial application of the Fifth Amendment was not clearly established. |
| Did Haysville compel Vogt via conditioning the job offer (Garrity claim)? | Vogt: Haysville’s condition forced self-incrimination (loss of job/offer coercion). | Haysville: Offer was voluntary; Vogt could decline and suffer no loss of existing employment. | Held: No compulsion by Haysville; conditional offer was not coercive under Garrity. |
| Can the City of Hays be liable under § 1983 (causation and policymaker)? | Vogt: Hays’ chief compelled statements, initiated the investigation, and set in motion uses that led to the probable-cause hearing; chief was a final policymaker for discipline. | Hays: No causation; chief lacked final policymaking authority; Chavez bars § 1983 Fifth Amendment claims. | Held: Vogt adequately pleaded causation and that the police chief plausibly was a final policymaker; § 1983 claim against Hays may proceed; Chavez does not foreclose § 1983 here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967) (public employees cannot be compelled to waive self-incrimination under threat of job loss)
- Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760 (2003) (plurality: coercion alone insufficient absent use in a criminal case; Court declined to define precisely when a "criminal case" begins)
- Mitchell v. United States, 526 U.S. 314 (1999) (Fifth Amendment protection extends to sentencing proceedings)
- United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990) (dicta suggesting the privilege is a trial right)
- Stoot v. City of Everett, 582 F.3d 910 (9th Cir. 2009) (coerced statements used to file charges and determine pretrial custody can violate the Fifth Amendment)
- Best v. City of Portland, 554 F.3d 698 (7th Cir. 2009) (probable-cause, bail, and suppression hearings can fall within a "criminal case")
- Higazy v. Templeton, 505 F.3d 161 (2d Cir. 2007) (bail hearing within Fifth Amendment’s scope)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs. of City of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires a policy or action by a final policymaker)
- Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547 (1892) (Fifth Amendment privilege may be invoked in grand-jury proceedings)
- Blyew v. United States, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 581 (1871) (broad usage of "case" and "cause" as proceedings in court)