*1 understandable, under Section time most suing misapprehen- fiduciaries plaintiffs 1132(a)(3). otherwise, law, of the the This makes sion we vacate order and sense— interpreting law remand for further proceedings. stifled state 1132(a)(3) encourage abuse would Section IV. Indeed, fiduciaries fiduciaries. every wrongfully accept incentive to sum, we reverse the district court’s they even if had no idea as to premiums, determination its dismissal order that coverage they existed —or even if whether McCravy’s under remedy Section it affirmatively knew that did not. The 1132(a)(3) is premi- limited to refund of risk would face would biggest fiduciaries i.e., paid, equitable ums remedies in- ill-gotten gains, return of be the their and cluding surcharge estoppel and un- are this materialize in only even risk would available under the as a statute matter of small) (likely subset circumstances law. We vacate district court’s sum- plan actually participants where needed mary judgment awarding order McCravy they paid. benefits for which had return of premiums only, her an order Meanwhile, enjoy fiduciaries would essen- upon entered based the district court’s profits risk-free tially windfall em- earlier, erroneous decision. And we re- paid premiums on ployees who non-exis- mand this case further proceedings. for benefits but never filed a claim tent who AND No. 10-1074 REVERSED RE- Amara, for those benefits. With Su- MANDED perverse put Court has these incen- preme No. 10-1131 VACATED paved way to rest and for tives McCravy remedy beyond seek mere
premium refund.
III. MetLife, cross-appellant, challenges Dwayne DURHAM, district granting court’s order sum- Plaintiff-Appellant, mary judgment McCravy awarding $311.09, premiums
her amount she paid to insure MetLife to Leslie. No- HORNER, County David L. Sher however, court, tably, the district in its Deputy iffs and Member of the Re order, nowhere addressed merits of gional Drug Force, individually, Task McCravy’s fiduciary duty breach of claim. capacity and in his official aas Wise “[bjoth simply parties agree It noted that Deputy Regional Sheriffs McCravy is entitled to a return of Member, Drug Task Force Defendant- premiums. stipu- Based this $311.09 Appellee, lation, grants McCravy’s the court motion summary judgment.” J.A. 171. Does, John Defendants. Crucially, summary the district court’s No. 11-1022. prior order judgment rested on deter- mination, order, in its dismissal Plain- of Appeals, United States Court 1132(a)(3) damages tiffs under Section Fourth Circuit. “limited to a refund withheld May Argued: premiums.” already As we have J.A. 160. Amara, Aug. clear, Decided: in light made we must disagree. summary judgment Given that an,
on this issue was entered under at the *2 Kinser, Montgomery Kin-
Charles Adam Offices, Jonesville, Virginia, for ser Law Henry Keuling-Stout, Keul- Appellant. PC, ing-Stout, Gap, Virginia, Appellee. TRAXLER, Judge, arranged Chief for three drug buys
Before controlled WYNN, Judges. through Circuit late 2005 KING confidential informant (the “Cl”).4 On November about *3 Judge by published opinion. Affirmed prior an drug buy, hour to the first in opinion, wrote the which Chief KING Cl, telephone received a call from the who joined. Judge WYNN Judge TRAXLER plan purchase illegal disclosed his to drugs dissenting opinion. wrote a Dwayne from a man named “Michael Dur- 2; Opinion ham.” See J.A. 180. The Cl OPINION drug described the dealer as an “old man” KING, Judge: Circuit a Jeep who drove with a stolen Tennessee identity, In Michael a case of mistaken plate, license number unknown. See J.A. jailed in Dwayne charged Durham was 330-31, relayed 334-35. Horner the name than Virginia southwest for more three Dwayne Durham to the Task prosecutor months before the realized and which, turn, Force office in provided a result, rectified the error. As Durham security social number and a Big Stone initiated this civil action the Western Gap post office "address associated with alia, Virginia against, District of inter offi Although that name." the Task gen- Force Horner, alleging cer David L. a Fourth erally sought photographs of suspects, it Amendment claim under 42 U.S.C. photo drug did not secure a dealer.5 law claim for malicious plus prosec state Accurint, Horner used an internet inves- ution.1 The district court awarded sum tigative tool available to law enforcement mary Horner on the judgment to basis agencies, query to the name Michael immunity, appeals. and Durham Horner, inputting the social secu- See Durham No. 2:09-cv-00012 2010) (W.D.Va. (the rity by number “Opinion”).2 Dec. obtained the Task Force. below, explained report As we affirm. The Accurint listed age forty-five physical as and his description,
I. records, 6'7", from Tennessee DMV as and, pounds, eyes. with brown hair hazel Horner was a officer in report Big Gap The reflected the Stone Gap, Virginia, and a member of Regional Drug per- Task Force.3 In address where received mail from duties, forming his Task Force 1982 to 1999. Accurint identified other By Opinion, 1. Durham also named as defendants the Com- 4. the district court observed Attorney "[tjhere monwealth’s of Wise and its apparently more than one high appealed Sheriff. He has not fashion, district although Cl involved in some the Cl judgment court’s of dismissal in favor of those Tracking prepared by Sheets Horner at the defendants. time indicated one and the same Cl each . drug purchase.” Opinion 2 n.l. unpublished Opinion 2. The district court's (Citations found at J.A. 357-66. herein to 5. After Horner became aware this civil "J.A._” refer contents of the Joint action, he conducted review of the case to Appendix parties appeal.) filed in this happened. determine what had He eventual- purposes review of the For of our district ly photograph showed the Cl a of a “Michael award, summary judgment court's we recite Durham,” David whom the Cl identified as light in the favorable to Dur- facts most person drugs. who sold him See J.A. 274- ham, nonmoving party. Buckley See added). (emphasis Mukasey, 310 n. 2008). incidents, Durham, including Memphis, the three Horner “told Task [the addresses for Tennessee, go 1982 and Smith- ahead and indict Force] [Durham].” between on, between 1994 field, 1992. and Virginia, point J.A. 331. From that Horner had a “current” address: Horn no involvement in Durham’s arrest and Lake, Mississippi, where he had moved prosecution. Accurint, According to September May Agent On Task Force Jaguar, and he been Durham owned Larry grand Mullins testified before the intoxicated. driving while arrested once jury County. An excerpt of those relying that “[b]efore cautioned report grand jury proceedings shows follow- *4 it system supplies, this should on data ing exchange: verified.” J.A. 228. independently LARRY MULLINS: Next one will be obtaining report, the Accurint After Durham, Dwayne on Michael D-U-R- VCIN, another internet Horner checked H-A-M. agencies, law enforcement resource for THE I have two on him. JUROR: acquired
where he Durham’s criminal his- LARRY MULLINS: Should be an of- record, in That tory Mississippi. record day fense of 12/16/05. Department from the state of Public Safe- THE I have three him. JUROR: Durham as 6'1" and 197 ty, described LARRY MULLINS: On infor- posses- pounds, with state convictions 12/16/05 agent mant contacted David Horner and February in drug paraphernalia sion of advised him he made pos- arrangements to public and for drunkenness and purchase Methamphetamine from Mi- paraphernalia July in drug session of chael Durham. Informant met with drug buy, to the Cl’s first respect With Agent they Horner where were completed Tracking “CSI searched for no In- contraband found. Sheet,” identifying target as “Mike formant provided with a transmitter Gap Durham” with the address. recording money device and to make the completed laboratory J.A. 222. He also purchase. request eight yellow pills examination Informant suspect met with Michael (believed Percocet) purchased to be purchased Durham and gram one “Durham, Dwayne” on November Methamphetamine for Informant $100. 29, 2005. Id. at 223. Horner submitted Agent met turning back with laboratory Tracking the CSI Sheet and the him they narcotic over to where request processing. to the Task Force for again searched with no contraband drug buys The Cl’s two other occurred found. County in Wise on December 3 and THE you say JUROR: Now when one occasions, 2005. On both the Cl identified unit is that— drug Dwayne dealer as Michael Dur- 31, 2006, purchased eight yellow May ham. The pills Cl J.A. 284. On buy in the drug packs against second and two returned three indictments Mi- (believed powder white methamphet- Dwayne relating to be chael to the Durham — amine) during drug the third. Officer Horner three transactions with the Cl— felony him Tracking charging drug submitted CSI Sheet and labo- with distribution 207, 216, ratory request Force for to the Task each offenses. See id. 219. As a result, drug sepa- of the latter two transactions. the circuit court issued three When laboratory directing “Sgt. results confirmed that the rate bench warrants D. had, fact, Horner, in purchased drugs Any Cl each of Other Authorized Law to arrest “Michael the situation. Durham Enforcement Officer” remained 208, 217, month, however, at Regional Durham.” See id. Jail for another until March when lawyer presented Durham’s cell phone records to later, in November Nearly six months Attorney argued the Commonwealth’s living Memphis, who was wrong person that the had been indicted Tennessee, received a letter from the So- prosecutor agreed and arrested. The with him Security notifying cial Administration lawyer the defense and dismissed the disability that his benefits would be termi- against three indictments Durham later outstanding nated due to an arrest war- day. that same County, Virginia. rant a re- .As sult, Byard, David one of Durham’s later, Nearly years two on March friends, contacted the Wise Sher- Durham initiated this federal court inquire Department to about the war- iffs against civil action the Commonwealth’s explain rant and that Durham had not Attorney, Sheriff, and Horner. The in Virginia years. lived for more than ten *5 only alleged claims to survive the initial Byard was told that Durham should sur- dispositive round of in motions the district in Memphis, render to the authorities § court were Durham’s 1983 claim and a “they straighten it out.” See J.A. state law malicious claim Durham Horner, December surren- against predicated each on an as- authorities, Memphis dered to the waived serted violation of his Fourth Amendment extradition, transported and was to the right to be free from unreasonable seizure. Virginia Regional Southwest Jail at Duf- summary judgment Horner moved for on field, Virginia. and, qualified immunity, the basis of on 7, 2010, December grant- district court ap- On December Durham judgment ed in In rejecting his favor. peared Virginia magistrate before a attempts to show factual dis- court, alia, “they’ve inter informed the putes concerning investigation Horner’s got wrong person” because he had resulting prosecution, and the the court drugs. mag- never sold See J.A. 248. bottom, at explained “[W]ell, got your we’ve responded, istrate [qualified not immunity protect does you address where lived Stone Gap, only those officers who are never “[Y]es, sir, Virginia.” replied, Id. Durham mistaken. To have cause does right prove[?]” that’s what does that [but] proof not mean to have sufficient to Although Id. the court fixed Durham’s bail ' convict. It present is clear from the “$9,000 secured,” post at he was to unable ... good record that' Horner acted in bond. See id. at On December faith in accord with the information appeared Durham before the Wise him.' investigation available to That'his judge ap- circuit and the court very led to the unfortunate circumstance pointed lawyer, counsel. Durham’s howev- portrayed highly regretta- this case is er, months, February waited for two until ble, law, but under the these facts do not Meanwhile, to contact his client. permit subject to officer to trial Durham not did raise mistaken identi- money damages. ty Regional issues with the Jail authorities because, according “they Opinion timely to Durham appealed 8-9. has qualified immunity wouldn’t have believed See id. at from the court’s [him].” district lawyer finally ruling, possess jurisdiction pursu- 247. When Durham’s talked and we n client, apparently explained to his ant to 28 U.S.C. 1291.
II.
As we
recognized, “[quali
immunity protects
fied
officers who com
an
review de novo
award
We
who,
mit constitutional violations but
quali
summary judgment
the basis of
law,
light
clearly
established
could rea
Wideman,
v.
immunity.
fied
See Lefemine
sonably believe that
actions
their
(4th Cir.2012).
292, 297
Sum
Purnell,
Henry
lawful.”
proper “only
taking
if
mary judgment
is
(4th Cir.2011). Hence,
our
and all reasonable inferences
the evidence
“two-step”
defense involves a
in
light
drawn therefrom the
most favor
quiry, asking “first whether a constitution
nonmoving party,” there is no
able to the
al violation occurred and second whether
fact,
genuine dispute of material
and the
right
clearly
violated was
established.”
(internal
omitted).
judgment
moving party is entitled to
quotation
Id.
Purnell,
Henry
matter of law. See
succinctly,
Put
Durham’s “mali
(4th Cir.2011).
prosecution”
cious
claim fails the first step
qualified immunity
inquiry.6 Al
though
entirely
“it
not
clear whether
III.
separate
right
[there is]
appeal
Durham contends on
that Horner
prosecution,
be free from malicious
if there
qualified immunity
entitled
be-
right,
is such a
the plaintiff must demon
cause he relied on and utilized unverified
strate both an unreasonable seizure
information to set “forth a chain of events
favorable termination of the criminal pro
*6
that would lead to the indictment and ar-
ceeding flowing from the seizure.” Snider
wrong
Ap-
rest
individual.” Br. of
Lee,
193,
Seung
v.
199
2009) (citations
pellant
emphasizes
omitted).
10. Durham
that Hor-
Thus, what has
ner knew from
report
inartfully
the Accurint
that
been
prose
“termed a ‘malicious
cution’ claim ...
Gap
simply
had not had a
is
a claim founded
1999;
on a Fourth Amendment seizure that in
address since
that Horner never
corporates the
analogous
elements of the
obtained the Tennessee license number to
common law tort of
prosecution.”
malicious
Jeep
confirm whether
belonged to
(internal
omitted).
quotation
Id.
marks
Durham;
that Horner had not secured a
specifically,
required
More
“we have
that
photograph of Durham to show the Cl and
confirm the
drug
identity;
dealer’s that
[1]
defendant have ‘seized
plaintiff pur
were
mately
admitted
ham,
Durham maintains that “Horner’s actions
correct Michael Durham. Accordingly,
hundred
in his
plainly incompetent,”
sixty years
believed the dealer was
percent
by deposition
mid-forties;
certain
old,
that he was not a
and that Horner
that
not,
arguing that
he had the
like Dur-
approxi-
Brooks
plaintiffs favor.’
emphasis
ported by probable cause and
suant to
criminal proceedings have
F.3d
178, 183-84
508,
v.
legal process
omitted).
City
(4th Cir.1996)) (alterations
514
”
(4th Cir.2005)
Winston-Salem,
Burrell v.
that
terminated
was not
Virginia,
[2]
that the
(quoting
sup
395
“whether or not Horner
reasonably
acted
Durham is unable to establish a
jury question.”
is a
because,
Id. at 11.
although
violation
Supreme
6. Consistent with the
inquiries
Court’s deci-
in either order. Because
Callahan,
223,
sion in Pearson v.
555 U.S.
dispose
step,
we can
this case on
first
236,
808,
(2009),
129 S.Ct.
189
testify.
before which Horner did not even
proceedings
criminal
underlying
favor,
Agent
only
terminated
Mullins was the
law enforce
cause,
by probable
plainly supported
testify
grand
ment officer to
before the
by the three
conclusively established
and,
circumstance,
jury
that
long
been set
It has
since
indictments.
hardly
could
have been the instrument of
that “an indict
by
Supreme
Court
tled
Indeed, we
misapprehension.
its
have no
face,’
by a
ment,
its
returned
upon
‘fair
concluding
that Horner tainted
basis
grand jury,’ conclu
constituted
‘properly
because,
grand jury process,
other
probable
the existence of
sively determines
excerpt
Agent
than the
Mullins’s tes
103,
Pugh,
v.
420 U.S.
cause.” Gerstein
(referenced above),
timony
the record does
854,
19,
L.Ed.2d 54
117 n.
95 S.Ct.
43
grand
not disclose the evidence that the
(1975) (internal
omitted);
quotation jury heard and considered. Nor has Dur
States,
350 U.S.
Costello v. United
ham
put forward
evidence
show
(1956)
406,
work). Put simply, ample there was evi IV. dence for a law reasonable enforcement Pursuant foregoing, to the we affirm the officer to believe Durham was in judgment of the district court. drug
volved the three transactions— AFFIRMED namely, the had Cl on three occasions drug identified the dealer as Michael WYNN, Judge, Circuit dissenting: Durham; Dwayne Durham had a light When viewed in most favorable address; Gap drug dealer to nonmoving party, the evidence in vehicle with plates; Tennessee license this case support finding could aas license; Durham had a Tennessee driver’s result of Horner’s per- Officer failure to and Durham’s history criminal included form competently his duties thorough- drug-related two Contrary convictions. (“Durham”) ly, assertions, Horner was “not re indicted, arrested, wrongfully and in- quired every potentially exhaust excul carcerated. I Because would find that Of- patory every lead or resolve doubt about *8 ficer regard- Horner’s mistaken conclusion guilt probable [Durham’s] before cause ing identity cannot be deemed Miller, [was] established.” See 475 F.3d as a reasonable matter of law- (internal omitted). at quotation 630 marks turn, by ishe therefore not enti- Nevertheless, if even the existence of tled qualified immunity as a of matter probable question, cause a close were law—I respectfully must dissent. “qualified immunity gives standard ample judgments.” room for Henry, mistaken I. (internal 652 at quotation F.3d 534 marks omitted). Indeed, qualified immunity pro majority grant would opinion Offi- public tects from guesses officials “bad in cer qualified immunity on the basis Having 8. that purposes qualified concluded Durham has no "via- established' for of immuni- claim, Williams, 257, § ty.” ble 1983 we need not determine See Lambert v. (4th Cir.2000). any rights 'clearly whether asserted [he] 263 n. 5
191 Cir.1988)), “indictment, by, Albright jury upon part fair overruled in grand that Oliver, 807, face, 266, constituted properly returned v. 510 U.S. 114 S.Ct. 127 conclusively (1994). the ex- determines grand jury, 114 L.Ed.2d This limitation on Ante at 189 probable cause.”1 istence of immunity comports with the Su- qualified omitted). According (quotation that preme Malley Court’s admonition majority opinion, because of this indict- “plainly incompetent who are officers that “a Durham is unable to establish ment knowingly who violate the law” those id. violation” occurred. See liability. not be from 475 should shielded (“[T]he supported plainly 341, Thus, 106 S.Ct. a mali- U.S. at 1092. cause, conclusively as estab- by probable incompetent police cious or officer who indictments.”). Thus, for by three lished applies for an arrest warrant will not be majority, the indictment breaks from immu- protected liability by qualified al- chain between Officer Horner’s causal Goodwin, nity. See F.2d at 162. 885 injury. incompetence and Durham’s leged Likewise, such an officer will be shield- Id. at 189-90. liability by jury’s grand ed from indict- However, Supreme reject- has Court George’s ment.2 See also Miller v. Prince argument: ed a similar (4th M.D., Cnty., 475 F.3d 632 against § should be read back- 1983 2007). liability tort makes a man
ground of that consequences for the natural responsible II. common law his actions. Since the of Nonetheless, determines, the majority the causal link between recognized law, immunity qualified matter that as a complaint of a and an ensu- submission liability Officer re- shields arrest, recogniz- we read ing wrongful arrest and confine- garding causal ing the same link. on a standard ment based Briggs, 475 n. Malley v. U.S. “deliberately infor- supplying] misleading (1986) (cita- 106 S.Ct. 89 L.Ed.2d [grand jury’s] that mation influenced the omitted). Malley, we applying tion Goodwin, F.2d at to indict. decision” invoke held that cannot “[a]n have officer However, also states that Goodwin not avail where he ‘did liability if “a an officer is not shielded from readily available information himself reasonably po- in [his] well-trained officer have matters to the that would clarified affidavit sition would known point charges] criminal [the failed warrant] to establish [for un- flatly factually ruled have been out as ” Metts, applied and that he not have cause should supportable.’ Goodwin omitted). (citation (4th Cir.1989) for the warrant.” Id. (quoting Sev- noted, “objec- Supreme has igny Dicksey, 957-58 As the Court proposition, majority proposition testify before support this failure to To *9 States, v. 350 U.S. relies on Costello United Horner the should afford Officer (1956). L.Ed. 397 S.Ct. layer protection. Ante at an additional of However, Fifth that case dealt with the However, Jennings, the official 189-90. grand jury, requirement a Amendment's for responsible given qualified immunity not was right to be free not the Fourth Amendment’s preparation presentation of the for the seizures and from unreasonable searches and contrast, Here, by application. Offi- warrant requirement, which are at cause brought prepared evidence cer Horner the here. issue jury. grand the before Jennings majority opinion 2. relies on Patton, (5th Cir.2011), the F.3d 297 for imprisonment “stan- arrest wrongful is the correct ham’s and tive reasonableness” days. qualified ninety Regardless immu- for over ... defines [that] dard counsel, request performance court-appointed nity an officer whose of accorded caused an unconstitu- undeniable truth but for allegedly a remains warrant actions, at Malley, 475 Horner’s Durham would tional arrest.” U.S. Officer Miller, 1092; arrested see also never have been and incarcerat- 106 S.Ct. (“[A] If recklessly investigative officer who ed. officer cannot at 632 be ... material information a held accountable his recklessness or from[ ] omits incompetence, said to then search warrant affidavit cannot be where is an innocent objectively to turn? have acted an reasonable man manner, immu- and the shield The record shows that the confidential (citation nity quotation lost.” and “informant contacted [Officer] Horner omitted)). case, genuine dispute a this advised him arrange- [that] and he made regarding of fact remains whether Officer purchase Methamphet[a]mine ments Horner’s mistakes rea- from Michael Durham.” 284. J.A. Offi- such, As this case cannot and sonable. that put cer Horner name into the Acc- not of law. should be decided a matter system urint and relied on the results of summary a judgment, resulting report,
On motion for Accurint notwith- standing knowledge evidence and all reasonable inferences his that facts di- rectly from it be in the light drawn should viewed undermined contradicted the nonmoving party, accuracy most favorable to the Accurint report. Purnell, Henry Durham. See example, For knew Officer Horner (4th Cir.2011). 524, 531 When viewed target driving Jeep was a a stolen with light, this evidence indicates that Offi- however, plate; Tennessee license erroneously report cer relied on a a Mississippi driver’s license. Addi- Accurint, from system conspicu- which tionally, based on from information ously given warns that the information informant, confidential Officer be- report needs corroboration.3 That showed target approximately lieved his sixty at link most tenuous between Officer old, years but possessed Officer Horner target Horner’s and Durham’s Social Secu- copy report the law enforcement rity post number and former office box. only forty-nine years showed Durham was Moreover, Officer Horner’s reliance drug buys unreasonable old. the controlled alleged to perform failure his duties investigation place under took thoroughly and competently County, Virginia, set in motion but Officer Horner knew a chain of events that ended Dur- with that Durham had not there lived since begins report 3. The Accurint with the follow- "Michael at Durham”. Ante ing 186, 189-90; However, disclaimer: J.A. commercially The Public Records avail- record reflects that the confidential informant reports able data on have sources used er- may simply identified "Michael Dur- poorly, Data rors. is sometimes entered suspect. target ham” as the J.A. processed incorrectly generally and is Therefore, appears genuine it there is system free defect. This should not be dispute regarding of material fact whether the definitely relied on as accurate. Before re- target confidential informant identified lying system supplies, data this it suspect as Durham” "Michael or "Michael independently should verified. *10 disputed Durham.” Such a fact majority 4. The determines that the confiden- by jury. be decided should gave tial informant name Officer Horner the
193 omitted)); living tion marks United currently over 500 States v. 1999 and was cf. Lake, Mississippi. Massenburg, Horn 486 away, miles (“Reliance 2011) Indeed, he anonymous tip Horner admitted that may Officer on an Acc- where, as to whether the suitably doubts harbored be reasonable corroborat- target. the correct ed, urint report identified indicia of exhibits sufficient reliabil- [it] omitted)). (quotation ity.” marks Conse- of the arrest war- After Durham learned view, my the district quently, court Durham’s, rant, of a friend Byard, David summary judgment in granting erred Depart- called Sheriffs the Wise qualified immunity. the basis explained ment on Durham’s behalf not have that Durham could committed in Virginia had not lived
this crime and III. Byard ten was informed that years. over maintains that Dur majority also himself and that Durham should turn ham cannot a violation establish of a straightened be out. the matter would “clearly right. established” 2006, Durham In surrendered December disagree I and would hold that Durham’s authorities, Memphis to waived extradi- § prosecution-type 1983 malicious claim tion, transported Virginia. to and was does meet this standard as a claim founded arrival, a magistrate Durham told Upon right on the Fourth Amendment to be free wrongly that he indicted and that had been search and unreasonable seizure. After drugs. sold Durham’s he never Williams, Lambert See ever sent to the picture arrest no was (4th Cir.2000) (stating incorporat 262 verification, informant confidential the ing common law elements malicious verify that right no action taken to the was the elements prosecution claim with of a person arrested. J.A. 148-50. Howev- was § 1983 claim not the creation of a was new er, David suspect, a new when action, “in cause of but was done recogni found, Durham, investigative offi- designed § tion of the fact that 1983 was to quickly photograph cer the confi- sent species create a of tort ‘special to liabili informant, who him as dential identified Pachtman, ty.’” Imbler v. (quoting 167-68. perpetrator. J.A. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 U.S. S.Ct. light (1976))). most When viewed favorable facts could support
to these case, not parties In this do contest finding Horner’s actions and that Officer established, clearly that there action- not mistakes were reasonable. right able to freedom from (“An Goodwin, F.2d at 164 officer See probable Accordingly, it without cause. cannot where he invoke follows malicious readily available did avail himself claim, under prosecution-type asserted that would have clarified mat- information Amendment, “clearly amounts to a Fourth point [the ters criminal right to be free from unrea- established” flatly charges] have been out ruled at 260. sonable seizure. See id. factually unsupportable.” (quotation Reaves, omitted)); States v. United IV. (4th Cir.2008) (“When sum, majority holds since anonymous tip on an police rely is conclusive must indictment support suspicion, tip reasonable cause, Durham is un- corroborative ele- evidence accompanied some reliability.” unreasonable seizure able to establish the (quota- ments that establish its *11 a viable 1983 claim based on element of However, to the prosecution.
malicious wrongful
contrary, Durham’s arrest and may require- indeed meet the
confinement § 1983 claim. Because there is
ments of a dispute fact genuine whether actions, which resulted in
Officer Horner’s wrongful arrest and incarcera-
tion, reasonable, Brooks, 183-84, respectfully I F.3d at dissent. America,
UNITED STATES of
Plaintiff-Appellee, GOMEZ,
Mirna Del Carmen
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-4089.
United States of Appeals, Court
Fourth Circuit.
Argued: May Aug.
Decided: