29 F.4th 93
2d Cir.2022Background
- May 16, 2016: robbery and murder occurred in a car. Laurence Washington was a passenger who later told police he feared for his life, did not know the shooter had a gun or intended a robbery, and fled holding the victim’s glasses. He sought treatment and was placed in witness-protection after cooperating.
- Detective Napolitano used Washington’s interview as the primary basis for an arrest-warrant affidavit for the suspected shooter (Gaston); Gaston was arrested. Later, in August 2016, Napolitano prepared and swore to an arrest-warrant affidavit for Washington (McGeough signed the oath) that relied heavily on Washington’s own statements but omitted detailed exculpatory facts from Washington’s interview.
- Washington surrendered and was charged; a probable-cause hearing later dismissed the felony-murder charge and he was ultimately acquitted of robbery and conspiracy after trial; he spent nearly a year jailed.
- Washington sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest and malicious prosecution. Defendants moved for summary judgment asserting absolute prosecutorial immunity and, alternatively, qualified immunity based on (arguable) probable cause.
- The district court denied summary judgment, finding absolute immunity inapplicable and identifying material factual disputes about omissions from the warrant affidavit that could defeat (arguable) probable cause; the Second Circuit affirmed the denial as to both absolute and qualified immunity and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants are entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity for preparing/swearing to the arrest-warrant affidavit and executing the arrest | Washington: officers performed police functions not prosecutorial acts, so no absolute immunity | Napolitano/McGeough: acted at prosecutor’s direction; conduct should be protected by absolute prosecutorial immunity | No. Court applied the functional test: swearing to affidavits and executing arrests are traditional police functions, not absolutely immune prosecutorial acts |
| Whether omitted exculpatory facts from the affidavit defeated the presumption of (arguable) probable cause, defeating qualified immunity | Washington: affidavit omitted material, exculpatory details (lack of knowledge, gun pointed at him, warning shot, hospital bracelet, witness protection) and possibly a positive credibility assessment—those omissions could change a magistrate’s probable-cause determination | Defendants: omissions were immaterial/redundant or otherwise did not undermine the objectively reasonable basis for arrest | Denied qualified immunity at summary judgment: viewed favorably to Washington, omissions could be material; factual disputes about weight a neutral magistrate would give the omitted information preclude resolution now |
| Whether an officer’s credibility assessment of a witness that undermines the witness relied upon must be disclosed | Washington: if officers credited his exculpatory account (or their assessment would materially affect probable cause) withholding that assessment/facts is material | Defendants: officer’s subjective belief is irrelevant to the objective probable-cause inquiry; they did not credit his innocence in full | Court: an officer’s credibility assessment can be material when it undermines the very witness-statement relied upon; disputed evidence that officers may have credited Washington prevents summary judgment |
| Jurisdictional scope for interlocutory appeal of immunity denial | Washington: N/A (plaintiff) | Defendants: appeal immunity rulings; claim resolution clear as a matter of law | Court: review limited to immunity rulings but will not resolve factual disputes on interlocutory appeal; here material factual disputes prevent resolving qualified immunity on appeal, so district court denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (officers who submit affidavit for warrant are not entitled to absolute immunity)
- Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (functional approach to prosecutorial immunity)
- Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118 (prosecutor testifying as a witness does not receive absolute immunity)
- Golino v. City of New Haven, 950 F.2d 864 (qualified immunity lost where officers knowingly/recklessly omitted material information from warrant)
- Walczyk v. Rio, 496 F.3d 139 (probable cause standard and corrected-affidavit materiality test)
- Panetta v. Crowley, 460 F.3d 388 (officer cannot disregard plainly exculpatory evidence)
- Jocks v. Tavernier, 316 F.3d 128 (awareness of facts supporting a defense can eliminate probable cause)
- Ganek v. Leibowitz, 874 F.3d 73 (corrected-affidavit framework for assessing omitted information)
- Escalera v. Lunn, 361 F.3d 737 (appellate review limited where factual disputes are material to qualified immunity)
- Ricciuti v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 124 F.3d 123 (officer not required to eliminate every plausible innocent explanation before arrest)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (two-step qualified-immunity framework)
- McColley v. County of Rensselaer, 740 F.3d 817 (credibility of witness/informant is critical to probable-cause analysis)