Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02766/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02766-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

WILLIAM E. LOVE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

FI LED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Ci:-rui~ 

AUG 1 O 1989 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

vs. 

LEROY LINAM and BOB POWELL, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

No. 88-2766 

(D.C. No. 87-C-340-E) 

(N .. D. Ok la. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.** 

In this civil rights action, plaintiff-appellant William E. 

Love (Love) appeals the grant of qualified immunity to defendantsappellees Leroy Linam (Linam) and Bob Powell (Powell). Our 

jurisdiction to hear this appeal from a final judgment arises 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 

Linam, Chief of Police in Choteau, Oklahoma, and Powell, an 

agent for the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation, participated 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a). 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause therefore is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 88-2766 Document: 01019974698 Date Filed: 08/10/1989 Page: 1 
in an investigation that led to the arrest and detention of Love 

on suspicion of murder. See Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, ch. 24 

(homicide} (West 1983). When two other suspects confessed to the 

murder, charges against Love were dropped. Love then filed this 

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his civil 

rights, including false imprisonment, false arrest, defamation, 

malicious prosecution, and abuse of process. Relying primarily on 

qualified immunity grounds, the district court adopted the 

recommendation of the magistrate, entering summary judgment in 

favor of Linam and Powell. Love appeals, arguing that Linam and 

Powell were not entitled to qualified immunity. 

Both the Supreme Court and this court have provided guidance 

on this affirmative defense. Qualified immunity is a defense that 

protects government officials from liability unless their actions 

violate clearly established law of which a reasonable government 

official would have known. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 

818 (1982}; Pueblo Neighborhood Health Centers v. Losavio, 847 

F.2d 642, 645 (10th Cir. 1988). A defendant also may prevail on a 

claim of qualified immunity if he can establish "extraordinary 

circumstances and can prove that he neither knew nor should have 

k nown of the relevant legal standard," Pleasant v. Lovell, No. 87-

1 384, slip. op. at 14 (10th Cir. May 18, 1989} (quoting Harlow, 

457 U.S. at 819). 

We recently summarized the mechanics of this defense, 

s tating: 

Once the defense has been raised and the plaintiffs 

have met their burden of identifying both the clearly 

-2-

Appellate Case: 88-2766 Document: 01019974698 Date Filed: 08/10/1989 Page: 2 
established law that the government official is alleged 

to have violated and the conduct that violated that 

law, the defendant must demonstrate that no material 

issues of fact remain as to whether his or her actions 

were objectively reasonable in light of the law and 

the information he or she possessed at the time. A 

defendant who makes such a showing of objective 

reasonableness is entitled to summary judgment unless 

the plaintiff can demonstrate that there are factual 

disputes relevant to the defendant's claim 

to immunity. 

Coen v. Runner, 854 F.2d 374, 377 (10th Cir. 1988) (citations 

omitted). When a police officer applies for an arrest warrant, is 

sued, and then asserts a qualified immunity defense, the defense 

will be unavailable only when the warrant application is so 

lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief 

in its existence unreasonable. Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 

344-5 (1986); Jones v. City and County of Denver, 854 F.2d 1206, 

1208 (10th Cir. 1988). 

Officers Linam and Powell contend that Love has failed to 

overcome a qualified immunity defense. We agree. The clearly 

established law which Love argues has been violated is the right 

to be free from arrest absent a showing of probable cause. Love 

contends that l} the facts relied upon to establish probable cause 

fail to do so, and 2) officers Linam and Powell withheld 

exculpatory facts from the district judge issuing the warrant. 

According to Love, the exculpatory facts would have prevented a 

reasonable officer from believing that probable cause to arrest 

existed. While the fourth amendment certainly protects against 

arrest absent a showing of probable cause, officers Linam and 

Powell have demonstrated that no material issues of fact remain as 

-3-

Appellate Case: 88-2766 Document: 01019974698 Date Filed: 08/10/1989 Page: 3 
.-.. 

to whether their actions were objectively reasonable in light of 

the law and the information they possessed at the time. Even 

under Love's version of the facts, the following indicia of 

probable cause were present: 1) an eyewitness identified a truck 

substantially similar to one owned by Love, present at the 

decedent's house near the time of the murder; 2) Love was unable 

to account for his whereabouts on the date of the murder; 3) Love 

made inconsistent statements as to his belief of how the decedent 

was killed; and 4) hair samples matching Love's were present at 

the scene of the crime. We must consider information the 

defendants had at the time of the arrest. That the information 

may be contradictory or later may prove incorrect is beside the 

point in this case because Love has not come forward with 

sufficient evidence to indicate that the conduct of these officers 

was the result of improper motivation. Pueblo Neighborhood Health 

Centers, 847 F.2d at 647-650. 

We are not determining whether probable cause to arrest Love 

actually existed. We merely find that the officers' actions were 

objectively reasonable under the circumstances. As such, Linam 

and Powell were entitled to qualified immunity, and entry of 

summary judgment in their favor was correct. 

AFFIRMED. 

-4-

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 88-2766 Document: 01019974698 Date Filed: 08/10/1989 Page: 4