Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-87-01984/USCOURTS-ca10-87-01984-0/pdf.json

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

---

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

PETER A. KAISER ) 

and MARTHA RHOADES, ) 

) 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, ) 

) 

V • ) 

) 

THOMAS LIEF, ) 

DOES I and II, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals T,,nth C:il'f'nit 

MAY 101989 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 87-1984 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF WYOMING 

(D.C. No. C86-0396) 

Bernard Q. Phelan, Cheyenne, Wyoming, for Plaintiffs-Appellants. 

Elizabeth z. Smith of Freudenthal, Salzburg, Bonds & Rideout, 

Cheyenne, Wyoming, for Defendants-Appellees. 

Before ANDERSON and BRORBY, Circuit Judges, and O'CONNOR, District 

Judge.* 

O'CONNOR, District Judge 

*Honorable Ear 1 E. O'Connor, Chief Judge of the United States 

District Court for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 87-1984 Document: 01019963582 Date Filed: 05/10/1989 Page: 1 
Peter A. Kaiser brought this action against Thomas Lief 

under 29 u.s.c. §§ 1983 and 1985, alleging that a search of his 

home was unreasonably conducted pursuant to an invalid warrant. 

The district court entered summary judgment for Lief on Kaiser's 

section 1985 claim. With respect to his section 1983 claim, the 

district court granted summary judgment in Lief's favor as to the 

validity of the warrant and the propriety of the seizure of the 

furs. A jury found that the search was conducted in a reasonable 

manner, and judgment was rendered for Lief on that issue. Kaiser 

appeals only from the adverse rulings relating to his section 1983 

claim. We affirm. 

The pertinent facts are as follows. Lief is a detective 

lieutenant in the Newcastle, Wyoming, Police Department. In 

August 1985, the department conducted an undercover drug investigation which focused in part on Kaiser and his live-in girlfriend, 

Martha Rhoades. The investigation utilized a confidential informant, Debra K. Hahn. On September 4, 1985, Hahn informed Lief 

that she and Rhoades were planning to travel to south Dakota to 

purchase cocaine, and Lief wired Hahn with a microphone and a 

transmitter. On the trip, Rhoades bought and transported back to 

Newcastle a small amount of cocaine. On September 5, 1985, Lief 

again wired Hahn and gave her marked money after she told him of 

a phone conversation which she had with Rhoades regarding purchasing cocaine. Hahn went to Kaiser's residence and, at Rhoades' 

request, entered a vehicle with Rhoades and an unidentified woman. 

Rhoades told Hahn that the woman would sell her a quarter ounce 

of cocaine for $770; Hahn agreed to the terms, and the money and 

- 2 -

Appellate Case: 87-1984 Document: 01019963582 Date Filed: 05/10/1989 Page: 2 
a bag containing nine packets of cocaine were exchanged. Rhoades 

and Hahn then exited the vehicle and entered Kaiser's residence. 

Inside, Kaiser, whom Hahn observed seated on a sofa with a substance appearing to be cocaine on a table in front of him, asked 

to buy a gram of the cocaine that Hahn had just purchased. Hahn 

agreed, and two of the nine packets of cocaine were placed on the 

table in front of Kaiser. 

Rhoades then drove Hahn back to her hotel, where she met 

with Lief. Lief field-tested Dne of the remaining seven packets; 

the substance tested positive for cocaine. 

officers, who stopped and arrested Rhoades. 

Lief radioed other 

Lief and Hahn then met with the county attorney, who prepared a criminal complaint and arrest warrant for Kaiser. The 

complaint stated that Lief had wired a confidential informant who 

delivered cocaine to Kaiser at his residence, and that the transaction was recorded on audio-tape. The complaint was signed under 

oath by Lief and presented to a magistrate, who issued a warrant 

for Kaiser's arrest. On September 5, 1985, Kaiser was arrested 

for possession of cocaine. 

The next day, September 6, 1985, Lief and Hahn met with 

the special prosecutor appointed to the case. An affidavit for a 

search warrant for the Kaiser residence was prepared by the 

special prosecutor and signed by Lief. 

affidavit stated that: 

In pertinent part, the 

On September 5, 1985, a confidential informant received from Martha Rose, a/k/a Martha Rhodes [ sic J, nine 

packets of a white substance represented to be Cocaine. 

Cocaine is a derivitive [sic] of coco [sic] leaves and is 

- 3 -

Appellate Case: 87-1984 Document: 01019963582 Date Filed: 05/10/1989 Page: 3 
a schedule two controlled substance in accordance with 

w.s. 535-7-1016(b)(IV). The delivery of this substance 

took place in the residence of Peter A. Kaiser in violation of the laws in the State of Wyoming. When confidential informant and Martha Rose entered the Peter A. Kaiser 

residence there was another quantity of white powder substance on a table in front of Peter A. Kaiser represented 

and believed by the confidential informant to be Cocaine. 

Two of the nine packets delivered to confidential 

informant were left in the described premises as Martha 

Rose and confidential informant left the residence. A 

subsequent field test of the substance remaining in the 

possession of the confidential informant proved positive 

for Cocaine. For that reason your af f iant believes that 

the two packets remaining on those premises are also 

Cocaine. Your affiant believes that the two packets are 

still located in or about the described premises. 

Thereupon, a search warrant was issued by the same magistrate who 

issued the warrant for Kaiser's arrest. 

Pursuant to the search warrant, Kaiser's residence was 

searched on September 7, 1985. During the search, Lief recalled 

that Rhoades told him earlier in the year that stolen furs were 

hidden in a compartment in a bedroom closet in Kaiser's residence. 

Thinking that drugs might be found in the compartment, Lief 

searched it and found furs matching the description provided by 

Rhoades with their identification numbers blocked out. 

believing the furs were stolen, seized them. 

Lief, 

The primary issues raised by Kaiser on appeal are whether 

the search was pursuant to a valid warrant, whether the furs were 

properly seized, and whether the district court properly instructed the jury as to Lief's liability for the acts of others. 

I. The Warrant. 

- Initially, Kaiser contends that the affidavit supporting 

the search warrant contained misstatements of fact. Assuming 

- 4 -

Appellate Case: 87-1984 Document: 01019963582 Date Filed: 05/10/1989 Page: 4 
that Kaiser's assertion is correct, the misstatements do not 

invalidate the warrant because they are not material, see United 

states v. Hampton, 633 F.2d 927, 929 (10th Cir. 1980), cert. 

denied, 449 u.s. 1128 (1981), and because the affidavit included 

sufficient accurate statements to support the issuance of the 

warrant. See United States v. Riccio, 726 F.2d 638, 641 (10th 

Cir. 1984) (citing Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 171-72 

(1978)). Thus, the warrant was validly issued in spite of any 

misstatements. 

' 

Kaiser further asserts that the warrant was invalid because 

the supporting affidavit was based on unreliable hearsay. Under 

the standards of Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983), 

[t]he task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a 

practical, common-sense determination whether, given all 

the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, 

including the "veracity" and "basis of knowledge" of 

persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair 

probabi 1 i ty that contraband or evi de nee of a er ime wi 11 

be found in a particular place. And the duty of a reviewing court is simply to insure that the magistrate 

had a "substantial basis for . conclud [ ing]" that 

probable cause existed. Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 

(257, 271 (1960)). 

Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. at 238-39. 

The af f ida vi t underlying the search war rant for Kaiser's 

residence established probable cause if the confidential informant's version of the facts is acc'epted as accurate. This raises 

the question of whether the magistrate had before him sufficient 

information to indicate that the confidential informant was reliable. The district court concluded that the affidavit itself 

sufficiently established the confidential informant's credibility. 

- 5 -

Appellate Case: 87-1984 Document: 01019963582 Date Filed: 05/10/1989 Page: 5 
This determination was based on the facts that ( 1} the confidential informant's knowledge of the events described in the 

affidavit was first-hand, and (2) the confidential informant's 

veracity was supported by a field test which indicated that the 

substance in her possession was, as she stated, cocaine. 

The district court correctly held that the above-mentioned 

facts gave the magistrate a substantial basis to conclude that 

probable cause existed. Moreover, the magistrate had before him 

other information on which he could rely in making the probable 

cause determination. 

This circuit has held that a magistrate is not constrained 

by niggardly limitations on his use of common sense, see United 

states v • Woo a , 6 9 5 F • 2 a 4 5 9 , 4 6 4 ( 1 o th cir • 19 8 2 } , an a that an 

insufficient af f ida vi t may be rehabi li ta tea by testimony before 

the 

281, 

issuing magi st rate. See Leeper v. Uni tea States, 

286 (10th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 404 u.s. 1021 

446 F.2d 

(1972). 

Other circuits have addressed the propriety of a magistrate considering facts beyond those included in the affidavit in making a 

probable cause determination. 

The Eleventh Circuit has made the broadest pronouncements 

regarding a magistrate's consideration of information beyond that 

contained in the supporting affidavit, stating that n[p)robable 

cause may be based on facts within the magistrate's knowledge and 

of which he has reasonably trustworthy information.n United 

States v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1983) (citing 

United States v. Strauss, 678 F.2d 886, 892 (11th Cir.}, cert. 

denied, 459 U.S. 911 (1982)}, cert. denied,. 464 U.S. 1050 (1984). 

- 6 -

Appellate Case: 87-1984 Document: 01019963582 Date Filed: 05/10/1989 Page: 6 
However, in neither Slay nor Strauss did the magistrate have before him facts beyond those contained in the affidavit. The Ninth 

Circuit, although repeatedly stating that the validity of a warrant depends on the sufficiency of the facts contained within the 

four corners of the affidavit,~' e.g., United States v. Taylor, 

716 F.2d 701, 705 (9th Cir. 1983}; United States v. Martinez, 588 

F.2a 1227, 1234 (9th Cir. 1978}; United states v. Damitz, 495 F.2a 

50, 54 (9th Cir. 1974}, has held that in issuing a search warrant, 

a magistrate may consider facts contained in a contemporaneously 

presented affidavit for an arrest warrant. See Uni tea States v. 

Fogarty, 663 F.2a 928 (9th Cir. 1981}. The court stated: 

We have been cited no restriction which limits a magistrate to the four corners of a single affidavit when 

facts are presented simultaneously in two related affiaa vi ts seeking two war rants [ ( an arrest war rant and a 

search warrant}]. 

In this case, Fogarty complains that some of the 

facts necessary to constitute probable cause for the 

search warrant were contained in the affidavit offered 

in support of the arrest warrant. We are satisfied that 

each affidavit was sufficient, standing alone, to present 

probable cause, but even if each had not been sufficient, 

of itself, we can think of no Fourth Amendment reason why 

the magistrate had to read either affidavit with tunnel 

vision. 

ra. at 929-30. Similarly, the Sixth Circuit has held that in 

issuing a search warrant, a magistrate may rely on facts included 

in a simultaneously presented affidavit for a second search warrant. See United States v. Dudek, 560 F.2d 1288, 1292-93 (6th 

Cir. 1977}, cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1037 (1978}; United States v. 

Nolan, 413 F.2d 850, 853 (6th Cir. 1969}. 

- 7 -

Appellate Case: 87-1984 Document: 01019963582 Date Filed: 05/10/1989 Page: 7 
We believe that in the instant action, the magistrate could 

rely on the facts contained in the complaint on which the arrest 

warrant was based in making the determination on probable cause 

to issue the search warrant. All of the information on which the 

magistrate relied was included in sworn documents. Further, 

although the complaint and the affidavit were not simultaneously 

presented to the magistrate, only a day separated their presentation; therefore, the facts included in the complaint were not 

stale. 

The complaint underlying the arrest warrant stated that 

the confidential informant was wired when she delivered cocaine 

to Kaiser's residence, and that a tape recording memorialized the 

transaction. The magistrate may use his common sense to infer 

that the recording verified that cocaine was delivered as stated 

in the complaint. Thus, the magistrate had before him sufficient 

indications of the veracity of the confidential informant, and 

the district court properly entered summary judgment as to the 

validity of the warrant. 

II. The Seizure. 

Kaiser contends that Lief improperly seized the furs, which 

were not particularly described in the warrant. We review de novo 

the issue of whether the furs were properly seized under the plain 

view doctrine. See United States v. Disla, 805 F.2d 1340, 1346 

(9th Cir. 1986) (de novo review of the applicability of the plain 

view doctrine, which involves a mixed question of law and fact); 

see also R-G Denver v. First City Holdings of Colorado, Inc., 789 

- 8 -

Appellate Case: 87-1984 Document: 01019963582 Date Filed: 05/10/1989 Page: 8 
( 

F.2d 1469, 1471 (10th Cir. 1986) (de novo review of summary judgment orders). Nonetheless, we adopt the reasoning of the district 

court, which properly granted summary judgment in favor of Lief 

because the furs fall within the plain view exception to the 

warrant requirement. In short, the plain view doctrine applies 

because ( 1) Lief was properly searching the compartment, which 

could have contained drugs, ( 2) Lief did not remember or intend 

to seize the furs when he applied for the warrant, and (3) there 

was immediate probable cause to believe that the furs were stolen 

because of Rhoades' statements to Lief and the marked-out identification numbers. See Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 737 (1982) 

(plurality opinion of Rehnquist, J., joined by Burger, CJ., and 

White and O'Connor, JJ., explaining the requirements of the plain 

view doctrine as set forth in Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 

443, 465-70 (1971) (plurality opinion of Stewart, J., joined by 

Douglas, Brennan, and Marshall, JJ.)). 

III. The Instruction. 

At trial on the issue of the reasonableness of the search, 

the district court refused Kaiser's request to instruct the jury 

as follows: 

When the acts of a member 

causes [sic] injury to a third 

imputable to the other members of 

may be held liable for the injury. 

of a joint enterprise 

person, such acts are 

the enterprise and all 

A joint enterprise is a contractual relationship of 

mutual agency employed to represent merely a unity between persons in the pursuit of a common purpose, as a 

result of which the acts of one participant may be imputed to another. 

- 9 -

Appellate Case: 87-1984 Document: 01019963582 Date Filed: 05/10/1989 Page: 9 
( 

If you find that defendant Lief participated in a 

joint enterprise with others, the acts of others will be 

imputed· to defendant Lief. 

Under Kaiser's proposed instruction, Lief could have been 

liable for the acts of other officers even if he had not authorized, supervised, caused, or participated in the acts. Such is 

not the law, as this circuit has held that the doctrine of respondeat superior cannot be applied to hold liable under section 

1983 an officer who has no affirmative link with the constitu..:. 

tional violation. See Kite v. Kelly, 546 F.2d 334; 337 (10th Cir. 

1976). Thus, the district court properly refused to instruct the 

jury as Kaiser requested. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

- 10 -

Appellate Case: 87-1984 Document: 01019963582 Date Filed: 05/10/1989 Page: 10 
ROBERT L. HOECKER 

CLERK 

TO: 

RE: 

~ttifeo jtatez <O:uurt of J\ppealz 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

OFFICE OF THE CLERK 

C404 UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE 

DENVER, COLORADO 80294 

July 10, 1989 

ALL RECIPIENTS OF THE CAPTIONED OPINION 

No.87-1984 - Peter A. Kaiser v. Thomas Lief 

Filed May 10, 1989 by Judge Earl E. O'Connor 

TELEPHONE 

(303) 844-3157 

(FTSl 564-3157 

Page 2, second line should read "under 42 U.S.C ..... " 

and NOT "under 29 U.S.C ..... " 

Very truly yours, 

ROBERT \L. · HOECKER, Clerk 

By 

I . . ~\~[ 

/, ' ,{ L { ) ' 1,i L 

:'P~trick Fisher · .. Chief Deputy Clerk 

PF:afw 

Appellate Case: 87-1984 Document: 01019963582 Date Filed: 05/10/1989 Page: 11