## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### D e c e m b e r15,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT
RO BE RT J OS E P H,

P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. RI CH AR D S HE P HE RD a n d S T E VE BA RTLETT,

D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. N o. 04- 4212 ( D. C. No . 2 : 0 0 - CV - 3 4 0 DAK) ( D i s tr i ctof U t ah)

RO BERT J OSEPH a n d RA CH ELLE J OS E P H, P l ai nti ffs-A pp el l ants , v. D EE D EE C O RR A D I N I ; RO SS C ANDE RS ON; RU BE N B . OR T E GA; J ERRY M END EZ; A. M . CO NN OLE, a lso k n o w n a s M a c C o n n o le, in th e ir i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t i e s ; S AL T L AKE CI T Y, a mu n i c i p a l c o rp o r a t i o n ; GUY YOS HI KAWA, a n i n d i v i d u a l ; RO Y WAS DE N, a n i n d i v i d u a l ; WI L L I AM S HEL TON, a n i n d i v i d u a l ; LARRY STOTT, a n i n d i v i d u a l ; CH AR LES RI CK DI NSE, a n i n d i v i d u a l ; SCOTT D. F OL S OM , a n i n d i v i d u a l ; J UDY DENCKER, a n i n d i v i d u a l ; M ARK ZE LI G, a n i n d i v i d u a l M ARK S CHARM AN, a n i n d i v i d u a l ; M ARK AS KE RL UND, a n i n d i v i d u a l ; J AS ON S N O W , an ind ividu al; D A V ID G R E E R ; Z A N E S W IM , an in d iv id u a l,

D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. N o. 05- 4181 ( D. C. No . 2 : 0 0 - CV - 3 4 0 DAK) ( D i s tr i ctof U t ah)T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he * doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t entw i th Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 and 10 th C i r . R . 32. 1. -2- ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e B RI S CO E , HOLL OW AY , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es. T h is is th e se c o n d tim e P lain tiff R o b e rt L . Jo se p h h a s a p p e a re d b e fo re th is Co u r tt o c h a l l e n g e d i s t r i c tc o u r tru l i n g s i n fa v o ro f p e r s o n s a n d e n t i t i e s h e c l a i ms p a rticip a ted in a n u n c o n stitu tio n a l ca b a l to re m o v e h im f ro m th e S a lt L a k e C ity Pol i ce D epart m ent . I n hi s fi r s tappea l , w e affi r m ed the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm entt o D avi d Y ocum, t he Sal tL ake Count yD i s tr i ctA t t or ney , and S a lt L a k e C o u n ty o n M r. J o s e p h ’s m a lic io u s p ro s e c u tio n c la im . Jos eph v. Yocum , 5 3 F . Ap p ’ x 1 , 4 ( 1 0 t h Ci r . 2 0 0 2 ) . Th i s a p p e a l c o mp r i s e s c l a i ms u n d e r4 2 U. S . C. § 1 9 8 3 ag ains t othe r em p loy ee s o f th e S altL ak e C o u n tyD istri ct A tt o rne y ’s o ffic e , S a lt L a k e C ity, a n d o ffic e rs o f th e S a lt L a k e C ity P o lic e D e p a rt m e n t. W e h o ld tha t th e d istri ct co u rtp rop erlyd ism issed ea ch d efen d an t and there fo re AF F I RM its ju d g m e n ts . I. F a cts L a te in th e e v e n in g o f M a rc h 2 6 , 1 9 9 9 , M r. Jo se p h , w h o w a s th e n a S a lt L ake Ci t ypol i ce offi cer , m ethi s w i fe, R ache l l e, ata park t o gi ve hera hous e key-3-

b ec au se sh e h ad b ee n inad v erten tl ylock ed o u t of their ho m e. W h il e the yw ere conver s i ng, a ca rpas s ed them atexce s s i ve s peed. M r . J os eph l eftthe park and pur s ued the ca r . W hen M r . J os eph ca ughtthe s peedi ng m ot or i s t , an al t er cat i on e n su e d . M r. Jo se p h c laim s th a t th e m o to rist o p e n e d th e d o o r a n d p u t th e c a r in m ot i on, t her ebys coopi ng hi m ont o the ca r . M r . J os eph fi r ed hi s w eapon a tthe s u s p e c t e le v e n tim e s b e fo re th e m o to ri s t d ro v e a w a y . R ac h ell e Jo sep h h ap p en ed u p o n the s ce n e a s sh e w as d ri v ing h o m e, be fo re a n yo th e r o ffice rs a rriv e d b u t af ter th e m o to rist h a d d riv e n a w a y . M r. Jo se p h to ld herhe had be en i nvol ved i n a s hoot i ng and as ked hert o l eave . She obl i ged, but had notgone fa rw hen s he s aw emer gencyvehi cl es w i th l i ght s on dr i vi ng i n her h u s b a n d ’s d ir e c tio n . F e a ri n g fo r h is s a fe ty, M rs . J o s e p h re tu rn e d to th e s c e n e . Si nce the ar ea w as cor doned off w hen s he arr i ved, M r s . J os eph appr oache d O ffi cerPoul s en att he s cene per i m et er , t ol d hi m w ho s he w as , and as ked t o s ee h e r h u sb a n d . O ffice r P o u lse n let M rs. J o se p h , w h o w a s u p se t an d c ry in g , into h is cars o he coul d t ake he rt o t he s cene t o t al k t o M r . J os eph. Subse quentevent s at t he s hoot i ng s cene l ed hert o fi l e a c l ai m under42 U . S. C . § 1983 foral l eged vi ol at i ons of herFour t h A m endmentr i ght s . W e di s cus s thos e eve nt s i n gr eat er d e t a i l b e l o w, wh e n r e v i e wi n g t h e d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s d i s mi s s a l o f h e rc l a i m. B o th th e S a lt L a k e C ityP o lice D e p a rtm e n t an d th e S a lt L a k e C o u n ty D i s t r i ctA t t or ney ’ s offi ce i nves t i gat ed M r . J os eph’ s r ol e i n the s hoot i ng. T he D . A . ’ s offi ce a s s i gned defendantSt eve Bar t l et tt o the ca s e. A s a r es ul tof the-4-

i nves t i gat i ons byM r . B art l et tand other s , M r . J os eph w as eventual l yi ndi ct ed for s econd- degr ee a ggr avat ed as s aul t . B efor e tr i al , how ever , the D . A . ’ s offi ce dr opped the cha r ges . O n J anuary18, 2000, defe ndantR i char d Shepher d w r ot e a l et t ert o form erSal tL ake Ci t yPol i ce Chi ef A r thurC onnol e des cr i bi ng the d ec isi o n o f th e D . A . ’s office to fil e a n d su b seq u en tl yd rop ch arg es a g ains t M r. J o s e p h . E ven though M r . J os eph neve rs t ood tr i al forthe s hoot i ng, he w as t erm i nat ed fr om t he pol i ce for ce. H e appe al ed hi s t erm i nat i on t o the Sal tL ake C ityC iv il S e rv ice C o m m iss io n , b u t fa iled to p a rticip a te in d isc o v e ry . T h e C ity e v e n tu a llyfiled a m o tio n to d ism iss M r. Jo se p h ’s a p p e a l as a sa n c tio n fo r h is r efus al t o cooper at e. Shor t l ybefor e the C om m i s s i on w as s chedul ed t o rul e on t hatm ot i on, M r . J os eph, t hr ough couns el , agr eed t o pr ovi de al l the mat er i al s the C i t yhad r eques t ed w i t hi n fi ft een da y s . M r . J os eph fa i l ed t o l i ve up t o hi s end of t he bar gai n, how ever , and the C i tyagai n m oved t o di s m i s s . T hi s t i m e, the C om m i s s i on gr ant ed i t s r eques t . M r . J os eph appe al ed the C om m i s s i on’ s deci s i on t o the U t ah C ou rtof A pp eal s, cl ai m i ng that he had been den i ed the du e process r i ghtt o chal l enge hi s t erm i nat i on. T he U t ah C our tof A ppeal s uphel d the C o m m is s io n ’s d e c is io n , s p e c ific a lly reje c tin g M r. J o s e p h ’s d u e p ro c e s s a rg u m e n t. Jo sep h v. Sa ltL a ke C it y C ivi l Ser v. C o m m ’n , 53 P. 3d 11, 16 ( U t ah C t . A pp. 2002) . T he U t ah C our tof A ppeal s ’ j udgm entbeca m e fi nal aft erboth the U t ah S u p re m e C o u rt , Jo sep h v. Sa ltL a ke C it y C ivi l Ser v. C o m m ’n , 63 P. 3d 104 ( U t ah-5-

2 0 0 2 ), a n d th e U n ite d S ta te s S u p re m e C o u rt , Jos eph v. Sal tLake C i t y C i vi lSer v. C o m m ’n , 5 4 0 U .S . 8 2 1 (2 0 0 3 ), d e n ied c e rtio ra ri. M r . J os eph then fi l ed thi s § 1983 cas e i n the di s tr i ctcour t . T he di s tr i ct c o u rt d ism iss e d a ll cla im s a g a in st M r. Y o c u m a n d S a lt L a k e C o u n ty , an d th is C o u rt a ffir m e d . Jos eph , 5 3 F . A p p ’x a t 4 . M r. Jo se p h th e n a m e n d e d h is co m p lai n t t o all eg e m ali ciou s p rose cu ti o n claim s ag ains t M r. S h ep h erd an d M r. B ar t l et t . H e al s o al l eged thatSal tL ake Ci tydeni ed hi m due pr oces s dur i ng the C iv il S e rv ic e C o m m is s io n h e a ri n g s . I I . P roce dural H i s t ory an d Standard of R evi ew C a se n u m b e r 0 4 -4 2 1 2 is M r. Jo se p h ’s a p p e a l f ro m th e g ra n t o f

a R u le 1 2 (b)(6 ) m o ti o n to d ism iss th e m ali ciou s p rose cu ti o n claim s ag ains t M r. S h ep h erd a n d M r . Ba r t l e t t . We r e v i e w de novo t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s gr antof a Rul e 12( b) ( 6) m ot i on t o di s m i s s , “appl y i ng t he s ame st andar ds as t he di s tr i ctcourt . ” Moor e v. G u th rie , 438 F. 3d 1036, 1039 ( 10th C i r . 2006) . W e ac ceptal l w el l - pl eade d factual al l egati on s i n the com plai nt as t rue and view t hem “i n the l i gh tm ost favor abl e t o t he nonmovi ng par t y . ” Id. ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . B ut m er el yconcl us or yal l egat i ons i n a compl ai ntdo notcons t i tut e w el l - pl eade d fa c tu a l a lle g a tio n s . Talv. Hogan , 4 5 3 F . 3 d 1 2 4 4 , 1 2 6 1 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). C as e number05- 4181 i s t he J os ephs ’ appea l of the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof Sal tL ake Ci tyand O ffi cer s M endez and Zel i g on t hei rdue pr oces s and Four t h A m endmentcl ai m s . “W e r evi ew t he gr antof-6-

s um m aryj udgm entde novo and a ffi r m onl yi f the r ecor d, cons i der ed i n the l i ght m os tfavor abl e t o t he [nonmovi ng par ty ] , es t abl i s hes no genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac t , and the defendanti s ent i t l ed t o a j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . ” Wes t land Holdi ngs , Inc. v. Lay , 462 F. 3d 1228, 1229 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m ark s an d cit ati o n s o m itted). I I I . Th e M a l i c i o u s P r o s e c u t i o n Cl a i ms A . R i chard Sheph erd I n J anuary2000, R i char d Shepher d w as t he di r ect orof the C r i m i nal D i vi s i on i n t he Sal tL ake Count yD i s tr i ctA t t or ney ’ s offi ce. O n J anuary18, 2000, h e w rote a let ter t o then -P o li ce C h ief A rth u r C o n n o le de scribing h is office ’s d ec isi o n to fil e a n d then d ism iss cri m inal ch arg es a g ains t M r. Jo sep h fo r Jos ep h ’s role in th e M arc h 2 6 , 1 9 9 9 , sh o o ti n g . T h e lett er c o n tai n ed M r. S h ep h erd ’s o p in io n o f

th e leg a lityo f

M r. Jo se p h ’s c o n d u c t, co n c lu d in g w ith th is s tate m e n t: “U nfor tunat el yt her e ar e fa ctual di s put es t hatexi s tand ther e i s no ot herforum a v a i l a b l e t o r e s o l v e t h e s e i s s u e s . Th e o n l yc o n c l u s i o n I c a n a s s e r twi th s o me fi nal i t yi s t hatt he dec i s i on w as m ade nott o pr ocee d fur therw i th cr i m i nal p rose cu ti o n . ” A p p ell ee s’ B r. , E x . H , at 2. M r. Jo sep h ’s claim s ag ains t M r. S h e p h e rd re la te s o le ly to S h e p h e rd ’s a u th o rs h ip o f th a t le tte r. A p p e lla n t’ s B r. 8 . S ince this l ett er fo ll o w ed the d ism issal of crim inal ch arg es a g ains t M r. J o s e p h , it c a n n o t fo rm th e b a s is fo r a § 1 9 8 3 m a lic io u s p ro s e c u tio n c la im . See R os ka ex r el
. R os ka v. P et ers on , 3 2 8 F .3 d 1 2 3 0 , 1 2 4 4 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ). T h e o n ly-7-

p o ssible d u e p roc ess c lai m itm ayraise is an inf ri n g em en t up o n M r. Jo sep h ’s

“ ‘lib e rtyin ter e st in [ h is] g o o d n a m e a n d re p u tatio n a s it a ffe c ts [ h is] p ro p e rty i nt er es ti n cont i nued empl oym ent . ’ ” Sti dh am v. P eace O f f i cer St an da rds & Trai ni ng , 265 F. 3d 1144, 1153 ( 10th C i r . 2001) ( quot i ng Workm an v. Jor dan , 32 F .3 d 4 7 5 , 4 8 0 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 4 )). T h e d istric t co u rt h e ld th a t M r. Jo se p h fa iled to s t at e a c l ai m . W e agr ee. T o es t abl i s h t hi s t ype of l i ber tydepr i vat i on, a pl ai nt i ff mustal l ege a nd pr ove ea ch of thes e fourel ement s : “‘ Fi r s t , . . . the s t at ement s m us ti m pugn the good name, r eput at i on, honor , ori nt egr i tyof the empl oy ee. Second, the s t at ement s m us tbe fa l s e. T hi r d, the s t at ement s m us toccuri n the cour s e of t erm i nat i ng t he empl oy ee orm us tfor ecl os e otherempl oym entoppor tuni t i es . A nd four t h, the s t at ement s m us tbe publ i s hed. ’ ” Id. ( quot i ng Workm an , 32 F. 3d at 4 8 1 ). M r . J os eph’ s br i ef doe s notci t e t o the par agr aphs i n hi s compl ai ntthat a l l e g e t h e s e fo u re l e me n t s . T h e c o mp l a i n ti s p a r t i c u l a r l yd e fi c i e n ti n two r es pect s . Fi r s t , al t hough t he compl ai ntcont ai ns the conc l us or yal l egat i on thatt he l et t erw as “fa l s i fi ed, ” i tdoes noti dent i fyanys peci fi c s t at ement s of purpor t ed fa cts th at i t al lege s b o th to b e false a n d to im p u g n h is r ep u tat ion . M r. S h ep h erd ’s l et t ers t at es t hat“[t ] he onl yconcl us i on I can a s s er tw i th s om e fi nal i tyi s thatthe decis i on w as m ade n ot t o p roceed fu rther w i th cri m i nal pr osecuti on . ” A pp el l ees’ Br . , Ex . H, a t2 . Th a ts t a t e me n t

— th e o n l yfa c tu a l c o n c l u s i o n a s s e r t e d wi th “ s o me-8-

fi nal i t y ”— i s undoubt edl yt rue, and i tdoes noti m pugn hi s r eput at i on. M r . J os eph d o es n o t con tend o therw ise. T h e lett er a lso states tha t “[u ]nfo rtu n atelythere are factual di sputes t hat exi st , ” bu tagain, M r. Joseph d oes no tcon t end this i s fal se ( i ndeed, hi s acc ountof the eve nt s i n ques t i on s eems t o corr obor at e r atherthan co n tr ad ictthe p rese n ce o f fac tual d ispu tes). N o r do es th is st atem en t i m p u g n M r. Jo se p h ’s r e p u tatio n . In h is b rie f, M r. Jo se p h se e m s to a rg u e th a t th e p ro b lem w ith t he l et t eri s t hati ti ns i nuat ed the r eas on fordi s m i s s i ng the ca s e w as l ack of, or uncert ai nt yabout , t he evi dence , r atherthan thatM r . J os eph w as exoner at ed. B ut M r. Jo se p h ’s o b lig a tio n a s a p lain tiff is to id e n tifya sta tem e n t in th e lette r th a t is fa l s e a n d t h a ti mp u g n s h i s g o o d n a me . F a i l u r e t o e x o n e r a t e h i m i s n o tth e s a me a s im p u g n in g h is g o o d n a m e , re p u ta tio n , h o n o r, o r i n te g ri ty. Second, t he compl ai ntcont ai ns no al l egat i on thatM r . Shepher d “publ i s hed” t he l et t er . I nt ernal comm uni cat i ons , i f notm ade publ i c, can ha ve no effec ton an empl oy ee’ s good name orr eput at i on, and ther e i s no al l egat i on i n the compl ai nt th a t th e d e fe n d a n ts m a d e th e le tte r p u b lic . See Lancas t erv. Indep. Sch. D is t . No. 5 , 14 9 F . 3d 12 28 , 12 35 (10t h C i r. 19 98 ) ( “A l so fat al t o p l ai nti ff’s l i bertyi nter est cl ai m i s t he fa ctt hatt he defendant s m ade no publ i c s t at ement s di s par agi ng [the p l a i n t i ff] o rh a r mi n g h i s s t a n d i n g o ra s s o c i a t i o n s i n th e c o mmu n i ty . Th e S u p r e me Co u r th a s r ej e c t e d t h e t h e o r yt h a tth e me r e fa c to f d i s mi s s a l , a b s e n ts o me publ i ci zi ng of the r eas ons fort he ac t i on, coul d amount t o a s t i gm a i nfr i ngi ng o n e ’s lib e rty .” (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s a n d e m p h a sis o m itt e d )); D i cke s on v.-9-

Q ua rberg , 844 F. 2d 1435, 1440 ( 10th C i r . 1988) ( “A l i bertyi nt er es ti s not vi ol at ed w hen one i s di s char ged w i thoutpubl i c di s cl os ur e of the r eas ons forthe d isc h a rg e .”). A c c o rd in g ly , w e a ffirm th e d istric t co u rt’s ju d g m e n t d ism iss in g th is c a u s e o f a c tio n fo r fa ilu re to s ta te a c la im . B . S tev e B a rtlett S teve B artl ettw as th e d istri ct att o rne y ’s office inv esti g ator a ssign ed to M r. J os eph’ s s hoot i ng i nci dent . M r . J os eph al l eges i n hi s § 1983 m al i ci ous p ro se c u tio n c laim th a t M r. B a rtlett “ c o n d u c ted [ a ] d e lib e ra te i nv est i gati on against h i m” b ya l l e g e d l yfa i l i n g t o “ fo l l o w[ ] t h e p r o t o c o l , . . . t o i mp l o r e [ s i c ] h i s o wn j udgm ent. . . , and del i ber at el yw hetherknow i ngl yorr eckl es s l y , w i thhel d the St at e C r i m e Lab i nform at i on fr om pr os ecut or s att he t i m e of s cr eeni ng. ” A p p e llan t’s B r. 6 . T h e d istric t co u rt h e ld th a t M r. B a rtlett w a s e n tit led to p rose cu tori al i m m u n ityan d q u ali fied im m u n ity . Italso h eld th at M r. Jo sep h ’s c la im s a g a in s t M r. B a rt le tt w e re b a rr e d b yc la im a n d is s u e p re c lu s io n . W e a ffirm the d istri ct co u rt ’s j u d g m en t gran ti n g ab so lute im m u n ityto M r. B a rtlett fo r h is ro le “ in p re se n tin g c rim in a l ch a rg e s to th e D .A . b yp e rso n a lly prepari ng an inform at i on againstO ffi cer J oseph [and by ] obt ai n[ing] an arr est w arran t. ” A p p ell an t’ s A p p . 6 0 . T h o u g h M r. B artl ettis no t th e p rose cu tor, p rose cu tori al i m m u n ityex tend s to c ertain a g en ts of the p rose cu tor w h en theyare e n g a g e d i n p e r fo r mi n g t a s k s t h a ta r e i n h e r e n t l yp r o s e c u t o r i a l i n n a tu r e . As we expl ai ned i n P er ezv. E l l i ngt on , 421 F. 3d 1128 ( 10th C i r . 2005) , w hen-10-

d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e ra d e fe n d a n ti s e n t i t l e d t o a b s o l u t e i m m u n i ty, w e e m p l o y a f u n c tio n a l ap p ro a c h th a t ex a m in e s “ ‘th e n a tu re o f th e f u n c tio n [ th e d e fe n d a n t] per form ed, nott he i dent i tyof the ac t orw ho per form ed i t . ’ ” Id. at1133 ( quot i ng Mali k v. A rapa ho e C ou nty D ep’tof Soc. Servs. , 1 9 1 F . 3 d 1 3 0 6 , 1 3 1 4 (10 th C ir . 19 99 )) . A n invest i gatorw ho prepares a cr i m i nal com plai nt and seeks an a rr est w a rr a n t is th e re fo re e n title d to a b s o lu te im m u n ity. R ober ts v. K l i ng , 144 F. 3d 7 1 0 , 7 1 1 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). W ith reg ard to the d istri ct co u rt ’s ho lding that M r. B art l et tenjoy s absol ute pr osecutori al i m m un i tyfor hi s r ole i n these tw o acti on s, t h i s c a s e i s c o n t r o l l e d b y R o b e rts , a n d we a ffi r m. W e a lso a g re e th a t q u a lifie d im m u n itysh ield s M r. B a rtlett f ro m liab ili ty w i t h r egar d t o t he otheral l egat i ons i n M r . J os eph’ s compl ai nt . “I n or dert o defe at a qual i fi ed i m m uni t ydefe ns e, ‘ a pl ai nt i ff musts how that( 1) the off i ci al vi ol at ed a cons t i tut i onal ors t atut or yr i ght ; and ( 2) the cons t i tut i onal ors t atut or yr i ghtw as cl ear l yes t abl i s hed w hen the al l eged vi ol at i on occurr ed. ’ ” Jo h n so n ex re l. Esta te of C ano v. Holm es , 455 F. 3d 1133, 1142 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( quot i ng Mi m i cs , Inc. v. Vi l l ag e of An gel Fir e , 3 9 4 F . 3 d 8 3 6 , 8 4 1 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 )). M r . J os eph fa i l s ats t ep one. W e r ece nt l yr ei t er at ed thati n cons t i tut i onal t or tcas es , “the comm on l aw t or ts erves as an i m por t antgui depos tfordefi ni ng t he cons t i tut i onal caus e of a ct i on, ” but“the ul t i m at e ques t i on i s al w ay s w hetherthe pl ai nt i ff ha s al l eged a cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on. ” P i erce v. G i l christ , 359 F. 3d 1279, 1289 ( 10t h C i r . 2004) ( ci t i ng Tayl orv. Meacham , 8 2 F .3 d 1 5 5 6 , 1 5 6 1 (1 0 th-11-

C ir. 1 9 9 6 )). M o st o f

M r. Jo se p h ’s fa c tu a l alle g a tio n s s im p lyd o n o t sta te a F o u rth A m endmentvi ol at i on. I ti s notuncons t i tut i onal fora di s tr i ctatt orney ’ s offi ce empl oy ee t o i nves t i gat e a c r i m e as hi s s uper i or s di r ect , nori s i tuncons t i tut i onal foran i nves t i gat ort o r el yupon a fe l l ow offi cer ’ s i nves t i gat i on w hen det erm i ni ng w h e th e r p ro b a b le c a u s e fo r a n a rr e s t e x is ts . See Uni t ed Stat es v. Troutm an , 458 F. 2d 217, 220 ( 10t h C i r . 1972) . W hi l e w i thhol di ng excul pat or yevi dence that w oul d vi t i at e pr obabl e ca us e foran arr es tcan a m ountt o a Four th A m endment v io la tio n , s ee Pi er ce , 3 5 9 F .3 d a t 1 2 9 2 , M r. Jo se p h d o e s n o t alle g e th a t th is o c c u rr e d h e re . I n G r ubbs v. B ai l es , 4 4 5 F .3 d 1 2 7 5 , 1 2 7 8 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ), th is C o u rt sa id t hat“[t ] he cons t i tut i onal i nqui r y ” fora cl ai m s uch as M r . J os eph’ s “foc us es on th e m a ter ialityo f

th e m isc o n d u c t in re latio n to th e d e ter m in a tio n o f p ro b a b le caus e. ” Id. T he C our tcont i nued: W her e i nform at i on has been omi t t ed fr om an affi davi t , w e det erm i ne t he exi s t ence of pr obabl e ca us e byexami ni ng the affi davi tas i f the o m itt e d in fo rm a tio n h a d b e e n in c lu d e d a n d in q u irin g if th e a ffid a v it w o u ld still h a v e g iv e n rise to p ro b a b le c a u se fo r th e w a rra n t. I f hypot het i cal l ycorr ect i ng the mi s r epr es ent at i on orom i s s i on w oul d notal t ert he det erm i nat i on of pr obabl e ca us e, the mi s conduct w as n o t of

co n sti tuti o n al si g n ifi ca n ce an d is no t acti o n ab le un d er § 19 83 ; bu ti f t his hypo t hesi zi ng w ou l d alt er the p robable- cause det erm i nat i on, t he mi s conductunderm i ned Four th A m endment guar ant ees and mays uppor tr edr es s under§ 1983. Id. (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s an d cit ati o n s o m itted).I n addi t i on t o t he tw o i s s ues di s cus s ed bel ow , M r . J os eph cha l l enges t he 1 di s t r i ctcourt ’ s di s m i s s al of hi s compl ai ntagai ns tSal tL ake Ci tyas a s anct i on for s c a n d a lo u s litig a tio n p ra c tic e s . See A p p ell an t’ s B r. 3 7

– 4 4 . B ec au se w e a ffirm t he di s m i s s al on t he mer i t s , w e nee d notaddr es s t hi s al t ernat i ve hol di ng. -12- M r . J os eph’ s br i ef doe s notdi r ectus t o s peci fi c ave r m ent s i n hi s compl ai nt t hatdes cr i be w hatfac t s M r . B art l et tal l egedl ynegl ect ed t o t el l pr os ecut or s . O ut of an a bundance of ca ut i on, w e exa m i ned the compl ai ntour s el ves and r evi ew ed su c h a lleg a tio n s. T h e se v e n o r so w e fo u n d d o n o t o n th e ir fa c e v iti a te p ro b a b le caus e forM r . J os eph’ s arr es t , nordoes he expl ai n i n hi s br i ef how theym i ghtdo s o. A ccor di ngl y , M r . J os eph’ s al l egat i ons do nots t at e a Four th A m endment v io latio n , an d th e d istric t co u rt p ro p e rlyh e ld th a t M r. B a rtlett w a s e n tit led to q u a l i fi e d i m m u n i t y. I V. Th e Du e P r o c e s s a n d F o u r t h Ame n d me n t Cl a i ms C as e number05- 4181 i nvol ves appea l s byR obertJ os eph and hi s w i fe, R a c h e lle J o se p h , fr o m th e d istric t co u rt’s ju d g m e n t in fa v o r o f S a lt L a k e C ity C orpor at i on, L i eut enantZ el i g, and Ser geantM endez . T he J os ephs ’ openi ng br i ef lists e ig h t issu e s fo r a p p e a l b u t co n tain s a rg u m e n t se c tio n s c o rre sp o n d in g o n lyto three o f th em . W e w il l add ress o n lytho se th ree issue s the yb ri efed , fo r “[ o ]n 1 appea l , . . . part i es m us tdo m or e than offervague a nd unexpl ai ned compl ai nt s of err or . Per funct or ycompl ai nt s t hatfai l t o fr ame and devel op an i s s ue ar e not s uffi ci entt o i nvoke appe l l at e r evi ew . ” Fem edee rv. Haun , 227 F. 3d 1244, 1255 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s an d b rac k ets o m itted).-13-

A . S a lt L a k e C it y Fi r s t , M r . J os eph ar gues t hatSal tL ake Ci ty“depr i ved J os eph a [ s i c] due pr oces s i n t he manneri thad pr os ecut ed [hi m ] dur i ng the cour s e of the Sal tL ake C ityC iv il S e rv ice P ro c e e d in g s.” A p p e llan t’s B r. 2 6

– 2 7 . T h e p ro b lem w ith th is cl ai m , how ever , i s thatt he U t ah C our tof A ppeal s has al r eadyhel d “thatt he C om m i s s i on di d notvi ol at e J os eph’ s due pr oces s r i ghtt o a pos t - depr i vat i on hear i ng. ” Jo sep h v. Sa ltL a ke C it y C ivi l Ser v. C o m m ’n , 53 P. 3d at16. T he U t ah C our tof A ppeal s ’ hol di ng s t emm ed fr om J os eph’ s m ul t i pl e fa i l ur es , t hough he w a s re p re s e n te d b yc o u n s e l, to c o m p ly w ith th e C ity’s d is c o v e ry re q u e s ts . See i d. at14 , 16 . B ecause thi s cl ai m al readyhas bee n li t i gated t o final i tybetw een these s a m e p a rt ie s , th e d o c tr in e o f c la im p re c lu s io n b a rs th is c a u s e o f a c tio n . Wi lkes v. W yo. D ep’ tof

E mpl oym entD i v. of

Labor Standar ds , 3 1 4 F . 3 d 5 0 1 , 5 0 4 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). B. R ac he l l e Jo s e ph R ache l l e J os eph s ued Li eut enantM ark Z el i g and Ser geantJ erryM endez under§ 1983 foral l egedl yvi ol at i ng herFour th A m endmentr i ght s aft ers he vol unt ar i l yr etur ned t o t he s hoot i ng s cene . She al l eges t hats he w as det ai ned i n a l ocked pol i ce c arfors ever al hour s , even a ft ers he had gi ven a s t at ementt o a p o lice o ffice r a n d h a d e x p re ss e d a d e sire to g o h o m e . S h e c o n ten d s th a t th is encount ercons t i tut ed a s ei zur e forpurpos es of the Four th A m endmentand that t he l ength of the det ent i on— fourhour s — w as unr eas onabl e. A ppel l ant ’ s B r . 47.-14-

T h e d i s t r i c tc o u r tg r a n t e d s u mm a ryj u d g me n tfo rth e d e fe n d a n to ffi c e r s , a n d we a ffi r m. 1. Fac t ualBackg r ound a nd D i s t r i c t C our t R ul i ng I ti s undi s put ed thatM r s . J os eph and he rm i nors on w er e the fi r s tpeopl e on t he s cene aft ert he s hoot i ng. H erhus band t ol d hert hathe had j us tbeen i nvol ved i n a s hoot i ng and as ked hert o l eave . She l eftbuts oon s aw emer gencyvehi cl es w i t h l i ght s on s peedi ng t ow ar ds herhus band, s o s he vol unt ar i l yr etur ned t o the s c e n e . H e r p u rp o s e in re tu rn in g w a s to m a k e s u re h e r h u s b a n d w a s u n h a rm e d . A ppel l ant ’ s A pp. 886, 944, 951. She arr i ved ar ound 1: 00 a. m . B yt hatt i m e, t he pol i ce ha d s etup a p e rim e ter a ro u n d th e sc e n e . S h e a p p ro a c h e d O ffice r P o u lse n , w h o is n o t a defe nd ant, and t old hi m w ho she w as and thatshe had been w i th h er husban d just p rio r to th e sh o o tin g . S h e a n d h e r so n g o t in to h is c a r so h e c o u ld tak e th e m to th e s c e n e a n d fa c ilita te a v is it w ith M r. J o s e p h . Id. a t 9 4 5 , 9 5 1 . T h e ysa t w ith O ffic e r P o u ls e n in h is c a r fo r h a lf a n h o u r t o fo rt y -fiv e m in u te s . Id. at887, 945, 952. A ft ers i t t i ng w i t h O ffi cerPoul s en fors om e amountof t i m e, “s om ebody came i n and t ol d [O ffi cerPoul s en] t o t ake” M r s . J os eph’ s s t at ement , w hi ch he di d. R . J os eph D ep. , A ppel l ee’ s Supp. A pp. 92. M r s . J os eph does not“r emem ber e x a c tly” w h a t s h e s a id to h im . Id. at93. A taboutt hi s s ame t i m e— abouthal f an hourt o for t y - fi ve mi nut es aft ers he arr i ved att he s cene — M r s . J os eph t es t i fi ed t hatO ffi cerPoul s en t ol d hert hatO ffi cerM endez had r eques t ed thats he be t akenM rs. Jo sep h ’s de p o sit ion test im o n yd iffe red fro m h er a ffidav itw ith reg ard 2 t o t he pr eci s e t i m e of thes e eve nt s . I n herdepos i t i on, s he es t i m at ed thatO ffi cer Poul s en t ol d hers he had t o go t o the s t at i on betw een 30 a nd 45 m i nut es aft erher arr i val , Supp. A pp. 97, and s he t al ked w i th herhus band more t han an hour , and p o s s ib ly m o re th a n tw o h o u rs , a f te r h e r a rr iv a l. Id. a t 1 0 0 . In h e r a ffid a v it, w hi ch w as pr epar ed s ubs equentt o herdepos i t i on, M r s . J os eph s t at ed thatt he re q u e st th a t sh e b e tak e n to th e sta tio n fo r q u e stio n in g a n d h e r c o n v e rsa tio n w ith herhus band occ ur r ed att he s ame t i m e, abouthal f an houraft ers he arr i ved att he s cene of the s hoot i ng. A pp. 887. N ei therpartyt r eat s t hes e di s cr epanc i es as m a ter ial. O ffi cerPoul s en t es t i fi ed byaff i davi tt hatM r s . J os eph l eftt he s cene 3 “s hor t l yaft ers he s poke w i t h herhus band and de t erm i ned he w as okay , ” thathe w as neveras ked oror der ed byanyoffi cert o det ai n her , and thats he w as not det ai ned. Poul s en A ff. at2, A pp. 858. Forpurpos es of s um m aryj udgm ent , t he dis t ri ctcou rtproperl ycredi t ed M rs . Joseph’s vers i on of the even t s. -15- t o the poli ce st at i on for qu est i on i ng . A pp el l ant’ s A pp . 88 7, 94 6, 95 2. M rs . Jo sep h n ev er sp o k e d ir ec tl yw ith O fficer M en d ez ; r athe r, sh e lea rne d o f M en d ez ’s re q u e s t f

ro m O ffic e r P o u ls e n a n d O ffic e r Z e lig . Id. at887, 953. E i theras partof t hi s conver s at i on ors om ew hatl at er , M r s . J os eph s poke t o herhus band and l earned for t he fi r s t t i m e t hat he w as “okay . ” Supp. A pp. 100. 2 A c c o rd in g to h e r v e rsio n o f th e e v e n ts, sh e re m a in e d in th e p o lice c a r u n til

3 s he w as t ol d, appar ent l ybyD et ect i ve W ool dr i dge, a non- defe ndant , t hats he coul d l eave and thats he w oul d be i nt ervi ew ed l at er . A pp. 890. I n herdepos i t i on, M rs . J o s e p h e s tim a te d th a t s h e re tu rn e d h o m e b e tw e e n 3 :0 0 a .m . a n d 4 :3 0 a .m . Supp. A pp. 103. I n heraff i davi t , s he s t at ed thats he “gothom e ar ound 5: 30 a. m . ” A pp. 888. She es t i m at ed thatherhom e w as abouta 25 mi nut e dr i ve fr om t he s cene of the s hoot i ng. Supp. A pp. 102. A s i s appr opr i at e on a mot i on for-16-

su m m a ryju d g m e n t, th e d istric t co u rt g a v e th e p lain tiff th e b e n e fit o f

th e d o u b t, and assum ed she w as i n the poli ce car for a t otal of fou r hours. D ur i ng t he per i od betw een he rl as tcont actw i th O ffi cerZ el i g and her d e p a rt u re fo r h o m e , M rs . J o s e p h re m a in e d in th e lo c k e d p o lic e c a r. A p p . 8 8 8 -8 9 . B ut , acc or di ng t o heracc ount , s he w as noti s ol at ed. I n addi t i on t o conver s at i ons w i t h O ffi cerPoul s en and he rhus band, “otheroffi cer s came t o chec k and s ee i f I w as al r i ght . ” R . J os eph A ff. at5, A pp. 888. She m ent i oned thr ee offi cer s by n a m e : M a rk S c h u m a n , C a m e ro n P la tt, a n d C h a d L a m b o u rn e . Id . S he tol d these ( orperhaps ot her ) offi cer s t hats he w ant ed t o go hom e bec aus e one of herchi l dr en w a s s ic k a n d s h e n e e d e d to g iv e h im m e d ic in e . Id. at888–89. A n offi cerfr om eith er the S an d yo r S altL ak e C ityP o li ce D ep artm en ts dro v e to M rs. Jo sep h ’s hom e t o chec k on herchi l dr en. T he off i cerobs erved the chi l dr en and i nform ed M rs . J o s e p h th a t th e yw e re s le e p in g a n d a p p e a re d a ll r ig h t. Id. at889. D ur i ng t he ni ght , s ever al offi cer s br oughtherand hers on hotchocol at e. O ne off i cer t ook hers on t o us e a c onveni ence s t or e r es tr oom , and O ffi cerPoul s en l at ert ook h e r a n d h e r s o n to a n o th e r n e a rb yre s tr o o m . Id. at889, 892. W hen M r s . J os eph l eftt he s cene t o go hom e, s he thanked O ffi cerPoul s en befor e s he l eft , and hugged hi m . Poul s en A ff. at3, A pp. 859. T he d i stri ctcou rtgrant ed sum m aryj ud gm ent i n fav or of t he d efen dan t s, st at i ng a nu m ber of alt ernat i ve g round s:-17- A l t hough t her e i s a di s put e as t o the l ength of t i m e M r s . J os eph w as att he s cene of the s hoot i ng, and the courti s notperm i t t ed t o m ake factual d eterm ination s in the co n text o f a su m m aryjud g m en t m o ti o n , the c o u rt n o n e th e les s a g re e s w ith th e C ityD e fe n d a n ts th a t n o re a so n a b le ju ryc o u ld concl ude thatt he pol i ce c onducti n thi s cas e w oul d have c om m uni cat ed t o a r eas onabl e per s on t hats he had be en det ai ned. M or eover , even i f the undi s put ed fa ct s s uppor t ed the fa ctthatM r s . J os eph r eas onabl yper cei ved th a t sh e w a s b e in g d e tain e d , the a c tio n s o f th e o ffice rs w e re re a so n a b le un der the cir cum st ances. M rs . Joseph h ad indi cat ed thatshe w as the fir st o n th e s c e n e , a n d it w a s re a s o n a b le fo r t h e o ffic e rs to s e e k to q u e s tio n h e r. T h e yu n d e rsta n d a b lyh a d c e rta in d u ties th a t th e yw e re re q u ire d to a tten d to b e fo re th e yc o u ld a ss ist M rs. J o se p h in talk in g w ith h e r h u sb a n d . T h e re is n o in d ica tio n th a t th e d e ten tio n w a s p a in f u l, de g ra d in g , o r u n d u ly prol on ged . T here i s no ev i den ce t hat the o ffi cers used o r threat ened t o u se anyfor ce ort hatt heym ade thr eat eni ng s t at ement s . T her e i s no evi dence t hatt he off

i cer s unnece s s ar i l ydet ai ned heraft ertheyl earned thats he had n o t se e n th e a c tu a l in c id e n t. I n addi t i on, t her e i s no cl ear l yes t abl i s hed l aw r egar di ng the l ength of t i m e an offi cerm ayr eques tthata w i tnes s s t ayforques t i oni ng. T hus , even as s um i ng t hatM r s . J os eph w as actual l ydet ai ned atthe s cene of the sh o o tin g fo r o v e r fo u r h o u rs, a g a in st h e r w ill , the re m a in in g d e fe n d a n ts w o u ld h a v e q u a lifie d im m u n ityfo r th e ir a c tio n s. A c c o rd in g ly , h e r c laim forunl aw ful det ent i on i s di s m i s s ed. A p p . 8 1

– 8 2 . M rs. Jo sep h n o w ap p ea ls from this ord er. 2. St andard of r evi ew B eca us e O ffi cer s M endez and Zel i g i nvoked the defens e of qua l i fi ed i m m uni t y , M r s . J os eph musts how t hatt heyvi ol at ed hercl ear l yes t abl i s hed F o u rt h A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts in o rd e r t o h o ld th e m lia b le u n d e r § 1 9 8 3 . Johns on ex r el
. Es tat e of

C ano , 4 5 5 F . 3 d a t1 1 4 2 . We r e v i e w de novo a g ran t of su m m ary j udgm entbas ed on qual i fi ed i m m uni ty , “and a ffi r m onl yi f the r ecor d r evea l s no genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac t . ” A r r edondo v. Lockl ear , 462 F. 3d 1292, 1297-18-

(1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). T o p ro v e th a t th e re is a g e n u in e is s u e a s to a m a te ri a l fa c t— i.e ., th a t su m m a ryju d g m e n t is im p ro p e r a n d a trial is n e c e ss a ry— th e n o n m o v in g p a rty m us ts how t hat“the evi dence , cons trued i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the non- m ovi ng par t y , i s s uch thata r eas onabl e j urycoul d r eturn a ver di ctforthe non- m ovi ng par t y . ” B ones v. Honeywel lInt ’ l, Inc. , 3 6 6 F . 3 d 8 6 9 , 8 7 5 (10 th C ir . 2004) ( ci t i ng A nders on v. Li ber t y Lobby, Inc. , 4 7 7 U .S . 2 4 2 , 2 4 8 , 2 5 5 (1 9 8 6 )) . T h a t o b lig a tio n re q u ire s th e n o n m o v in g p a rtyto “ ‘m a k e a sh o w in g su fficie n t to es t abl i s h t he exi s t ence of an e l ementes s ent i al t o thatparty ’ s cas e, and on w hi ch t hatpar t yw i l l beart he bur den of pr oof attr i al . ’ ” Hom v. Sq uir e , 81 F. 3d 969, 974 ( 10t h C i r . 1996) ( quot i ng C e lo tex C o rp . v. C a tre tt , 477 U . S. 317, 322 (19 8 6 )). Itis al so w ell estab li sh ed that w e “ m ayaffirm a g ran t of su m m ary j udgm enton gr ounds ot hert han thos e r el i ed on bythe di s tr i ctcourtw hen the r ecor d cont ai ns an ade quat e and i ndepende ntbas i s forthatr es ul t . ” B ones , 366 F. 3d at875 ( ci t i ng C o n e v . L o n g m o n t Un itedHo sp . A ss’n , 1 4 F .3 d 5 2 6 , 5 2 8 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 )). 3. M rs . Jos eph’ s B ri ef T he A ppel l ant s ’ openi ng br i ef c ons i s t s of s l i ght l ym or e than tw o pages of arg u m en t add ressing M rs. Jo sep h ’s de tention . Itco n tai n s p rec isel yfiv e re co rd c itatio n s, fo u r o f

w h ich a re c itatio n s to th e d istric t co u rt’s o rd e r; th e fif th re fe rs to le g a l a rg u m e n t b yth e c ity a tto rn e yin d is tr ic t c o u rt . See A p p e lla n t’ s B r. 4 5

– 4 8 . T he br i ef c i t es one Tent h C i r cui tcas e di s cus s i ng w hatqual i fi es as a s ei zur e under-19-

the F o u rth A m en d m en t bu t do es n o t othe rw ise d ev elop the re m ainin g fra m ew o rk t hatgoverns s ui t s under§ 1983 forFour th A m endmentvi ol at i ons . T he A pp el l ants ’ r eplybri ef do es not even m enti on M rs . Joseph’s cl ai m s. T h is is b a re ly su ffic ie n t to in v o k e a p p e lla te re v ie w . See Fem edee r , 227 F. 3d at 1255. M r s . J os eph does noti dent i fyt he es s ent i al el ement s on w hi ch s he w o u ld b e a r t h e b u rd e n o f p ro o f a t tr ia l, Hom , 8 1 F .3 d a t 9 7 3

– 7 4 , n o r d o e s s h e c ite one pi ece of evi dence t hatw oul d al l ow a r eas onabl e j ur yt o fi nd i n herfavoron t ho se ( un m enti on ed) el em ents . See Bones , 366 F. 3d at875. N ordoes s he offer anyr epl yt o A ppel l ees ’ al t ernat i ve gr ound thatt he det ent i on, i f i tw as a det ent i on, w as r eas onabl e. A ppel l ees ’ B r . 44–48. It is w e ll es tab lish e d in th is C irc u it th a t itis n o t th e C o u rt’s r e sp o n sib ili ty t o “s ear ch the r ecor d i n an effor tt o det erm i ne w hethert her e exi s t s dor m ant evi dence w hi ch mi ghtr equi r e s ubm i s s i on of the ca s e t o a j ur y . ” Thom as v. Wi chi ta C oca- C ola B ot t l i ng C o. , 9 6 8 F .2 d 1 0 2 2 , 1 0 2 5 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 2 ); see also Uni t ed Stat es v. A bdenbi , 3 6 1 F . 3 d 1 2 8 2 , 1 2 9 0 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) (“T h is co u rt s houl d nei t herr ai s e su a sp o n te an arg u m en t no t adv an ce d b ya p artyeith er b efo re t he di s t r i ctcour toron appea l , nort hen advoc at e a pa r t i cul arpos i t i on and r es ol ve th e a p p e a l b a s e d o n th a t a d v o c a c y .” ). N ot w i t hs t andi ng t he def i ci enci es i n A ppel l ant s ’ br i ef, w e w i l l s etfor th our ra tio n a le fo r a ffir m a n c e . 4 . A n a ly sis-20-

A l t hough t he di s t r i ctcourt ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm entw as bas ed on a num berof al t ernat i ve gr ounds , A ppel l ant s focus thei rar gum enton the pr opos i t i on t hat“the [di s t r i ct ] C our ts houl d have de t erm i ned thatPl ai nt i ff w as s ei zed for purpos es of the Four t h A m endmentand thatthe fourhourdet ent i on w as u n re a s o n a b le .” A p p e lla n ts ’ B r. 4 7 . T o det erm i ne w hethert he conduc tof O ffi cer s Z el i g and M endez cons t i tut ed an i nves t i gat i ve det ent i on, w e as k w hether , “‘ i n vi ew of al l of the ci r cumst ance s s ur r oundi ng t he i nci dent , a r eas onabl e per s on w oul d have be l i eved thathe w as not fr ee t o l eave . ’ ” Mi chigan v. C hes t er nut , 486 U . S. 567, 573 ( 1988) ( quot i ng Un itedS ta tes v . Me n d e n h a ll , 446 U . S. 544, 554 ( 1980) ) . I n Un itedS ta tes v . Hill , 199 F. 3d 1143 ( 10t h C i r . 1999) , w e i dent i fi ed thes e fa ct or s as gui di ng our det erm i nat i on of w hethera per s on w as s ubj ectt o thi s type of s ei zur e: t he thr eat eni ng pr es ence of s ever al offi cer s ; the br andi s hi ng of a w eapon byan off

i cer ; s om e phy s i cal t ouchi ng byan off i cer ; us e of a g g re ss iv e lan g u a g e o r to n e o f v o ice in d ica tin g th a t co m p lian c e w ith an o fficer’s req u est i s co m p u lsory ; pro lon g ed reten ti o n o f a p erso n ’s per s onal effect s . . . ; a r eques tt o acc om panythe off i cert o the s t at i on; i nt er act i on i n a nonpubl i c pl ace ora s m al l , encl os ed pl ace ; and abs ence of otherm ember s of the publ i c. Id. at1147–48. “N one of thes e fa ct or s ar e di s pos i t i ve, nors houl d theybe tr eat ed as e x clus ive, an d itm ayb e tha t th e stron g p rese n ce o f tw o o r th ree fa ctors d e m o n stra tes th a t a r e a so n a b le p e rso n w o u ld h a v e b e liev e d th a t h e w a s n o t f re e to t erm i nat e an e ncount erw i t h governm entoffi ci al s . ” Fuerschb ach v. So uthw est-21-

A i r l i nes C o. , 439 F. 3d 1197, 1203 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks o m itted). W hen eva l uat i ng an i nves t i gat i ve det ent i on’ s r eas onabl enes s , w e as k ( 1) w as t he det ent i on “‘ j us t i fi ed ati t s i ncept i on, ’ ” and ( 2) w er e the off i cer ’ s act i ons

“‘ r eas onabl yr el at ed i n s cope t o the ci r cumst ance s w hi ch j us t i fi ed the i nt er fer ence i n t h e fi r s tp l a c e ’ ” ? Uni t ed Stat es v. Johns on , 3 6 4 F . 3 d 1 1 8 5 , 1 1 8 9 (10 th C ir . 2004) ( quot i ng Te rr

y v . O h io , 392 U . S. 1, 20 ( 1968) ) . “A tboth s t ages , the rea so n ab lene ss o f th e o fficer’s su sp ici o n s is j u d g ed b yan o bjecti v e stan d ard takin g the to tal ityo f th e c ir cu m stan ce s an d info rm ati o n av ail ab le t o the o fficers i nt o acc ount . ” Id. ( i n t e rn a l q u o t a t i o n ma r k s o mi t t e d ) . I n a d d i t i o n , th e S u p r e me C our thas hel d t hat“an i nves t i gat i ve det ent i on m us tbe t empora ryand l as tno l ongert han i s nece s s aryt o effectuat e the purpos e of the s t op, ” F l or i da v. R oyer , 4 6 0 U .S . 4 9 1 , 5 0 0 (1 9 8 3 ), an d th a t p o lice m u st “ d ili g e n tlyp u rsu e th e ir i nves t i gat i on, ” Uni t ed Stat es v. P lace , 4 6 2 U .S . 6 9 6 , 7 0 9 (1 9 8 3 ). In th is connec t i on, t he Supr eme C our thas “i m pos e[d] no r i gi d t i m e l i m i t at i on” on inv esti g ati v e d eten ti o n s, p referring instead to let “co m m o n sen se a n d o rdin ary hum an expe r i ence . . . govern overr i gi d cr i t er i a. ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Shar pe , 470 U . S . 6 7 5 , 6 8 5 (19 8 5 ). T he mostgl ar i ng defi ci encyi n M r s . J os eph’ s cas e i s the abs ence of any e v i d e n c e c o n n e c t i n g t h e s u p p o s e d c o n s t i tu t i o n a l v i o l a t i o n t o th e d e fe n d a n t s . As t hi s C our tr ece nt l yexpl ai ned:-22-

S e c tio n 1 9 8 3 re q u ire s p lain tiffs to sh o w c a u sa tio n , im p o sin g liab ili ty on a defendantw ho “s ubj ect s , orcaus es t o be s ubj ect ed, anyci t i zen .

. . t o t he depr i vat i on of anyr i ght s . . . . ” 42 U . S. C . § 1983. W e have expl ai ned Sect i on 1983’ s caus at i on r equi r ement : “[A ] defe ndantm ay n o t b e h e ld liab le u n d e r § 1 9 8 3 u n les s h e o r sh e su bjec ted a c iti z e n to t he depr i vat i on, orcaus ed a c i t i zen t o be s ubj ect ed t o the depr i vat i on. ” To n ko v ich v . Ka n . B d . o f R eg e n ts , 159 F. 3d 504, 518 ( 10t h C i r . 1988) . “A pl ai nt i ff mustal l ege factual caus at i on— i . e. ‘ but for ’ caus at i on— i n or dert o s t at e a c l ai m under§ 1983. ” Scot tv. Hern , 2 1 6 F . 3 d 8 9 7 , 9 1 1 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). L ip p o ld t v. C o le , — F .3 d — , 2 0 0 6 W L 3 2 0 0 8 6 4 , a t * 1 1 (1 0 th C ir . N o v . 7 , 2 0 0 6 ). B eca us e M r s . J os eph i nt ent i onal l yom i t t ed O ffi cerPoul s en as a defendantand s u e d o n ly O ffic e rs M e n d e z a n d Z e lig , s ee A p p e llee ’s S u p p . A p p . 1 1 3 , itis im p o rt a n t to id e n tif

ye x a c tly w h a t r o le M e n d e z a n d Z e lig p la y e d in th e in c id e n t. In h er m em o ran d u m in o p p o sit ion to the d efen d an ts’ m o ti o n fo r sum m ary j udgm ent , M r s . J os eph expr es s l yadmi t t ed “thatM endez ’ s i nvol vement ” w i th t he in c id e n t “w a s lim ited to th e fo llo w in g ” : a . Z e lig sa id th a t M e n d e z w a n ted to h a v e h e r ta k e n to th e p o lice sta tio n to b e in ter v iew e d . T h is o c c u rre d a t ap p ro x im a tely1 :3 0 o r 1 :4 5 a .m ., o n e -h a lf h o u r or fo rty -five m inu tes af ter R ac h ell e fir st en tered O fficer P o u lsen ’s p o li ce ca r. b. R ache l l e J os eph neve rper s onal l ys poke t o M endez . c . R a c h e lle J o se p h h a s n o o th e r k n o w led g e o f M e n d e z ’s in v o lv e m e n t w ith heral l eged de t ent i on. A p p e l l a n t ’ s A p p . 9 4 8 , 9 5 8 , c i t i n g R . J o s e p h D e p . a t3 9 , 4 0 , 4 6 . S i m i l a r l y, A ppel l antexpr es s l yadmi t t ed “thatZ el i g’ s i nvol vementi s l i m i t ed t o the fol l ow i ng”:-23-

a. Z el i g t ol d O ffi cerPoul s en thatM endez w ant ed t o have he rt aken t o the pol i ce s t at i on t o be i nt ervi ew ed. T hi s occurr ed atappr oxi m at el y1: 30 or 1: 45 a. m . , one- hal f hourorfor ty - fi ve mi nut es aft erR ache l l e fi r s tent er ed O fficer P o u lsen ’s po li ce ca r. b . Z e lig a sk e d o r to ld R a c h e lle J o se p h to w a it fo r a h o m icid e d e tec tiv e to t al k t o heraboutt he eve nt s s he obs erved orpos s i bl yt ol d thi s t o s om eone el s e and Rachel l e J os eph overhear d hi m . T hi s i s pr obabl ythe s ame event des cr i bed i n ( a) above. Id. a t 9 4 8

– 4 9 , 9 5 9 , c itin g R . J o s e p h D e p . a t 3 9 , 4 0 , 8 7 -8 9 . B yA ppel l ant s ’ ow n admi s s i on, ther efor e, O ffi cer s Z el i g and M endez had no di r ectori ndi r ectcont actw i t h M r s . J os eph af t er1: 45 a. m . T hi s w as for ty - fi ve m i nut es aft ers he vol unt ar i l yr eturned t o the s cene , no l at erthan fi ft een mi nut es aft ers he gave hers t at ementt o O ffi cerPoul s en, and aboutthe s ame t i m e s he s aw and s poke t o herhus band. N ei t herdefe ndanthad anyfur theri nvol vementi n her al l eged de t ent i on. L i eut enantZ el i g’ s ent i r e i nvol vementw as t o conveySer geant M endez ’ s des i r e thats he be f ur t herques t i oned. T her e i s no evi dence thatei ther defe ndantw as aw ar e thats he r emai ned i n the pol i ce c aras l ong as s he di d, knewI n herdepos i t i on, M r s . J os eph t es t i fi ed: 4 Q : D i d y ou evert el l anybody , I ’ ve t ol d y ou al l I know . I w antt o go hom e? A . Y es. Q : W h o d id y o u tell th a t? A : Poul s en R . Jo se p h D e p ., S u p p . A p p . 9 9 . In h e r a ffid a v it, M rs. J o se p h sta ted th a t sh e to ld cert ai n “off

i cer s ” thats he w ant ed t o go hom e, m ent i oni ng onl yC amer on Pl at tby n a m e . R . Jo se p h A ff. at 5 , A p p . 8 8 8 . T h is w a s a f ter h e r la st c o n v e rsa tio n w ith O ffi cerZ el i g. -24- t hat s he had r eques t ed t o go hom e, orw as otherw i s e aw ar e of the condi t i ons or 4 c ir c u m s ta n c e s . B as ed on thi s r ecor d, w e conc l ude thatt he di s tr i ctcourtpr oper l ygr ant ed s um m aryj udgm entfort he defendant s . I ti s undi s put ed thatM r s . J os eph w as at t he s hoot i ng s cene vol unt ar i l yforbetw een thi r tyand forty - fi ve mi nut es , unt i l s he talk e d to h e r h u sb a n d a n d lea rn e d h e w a s n o t se rio u slyinju re d . B e c a u se th is p o rtio n o f

th e e n c o u n terw a s c o n se n su a l, i t d o e s n o t im p lica te th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t. Lopez , 443 F. 3d at1283. A tt he veryear l i es t , t he i nci dentes cal at ed fr om a cons ens ual encount ert o an i nves t i gat i ve det ent i on aft erM r s . J os eph le a rn e d th a t O ffic e r M e n d e z w a n te d h e r t o b e in te rv ie w e d . See Shar eef , 100 F. 3d at1500. A s s um i ng w i t houtdeci di ng thatatt hi s poi ntt he enc ount erbeca m e an i nves t i gat i ve det ent i on, M r s . J os eph mustal s o s how t hatt he det ent i on w as u n re a s o n a b le , Fuers chbach , 439 F. 3d at1202, byi dent i fy i ng evi dence fr om w h ich a re a so n a b le ju ryc o u ld c o n c lu d e th a t h e r d e ten tio n w a s n o t ju stified a t it s-25-

in c e p tio n a n d n o t re a so n a b lyre late d in sc o p e to th e c irc u m sta n c e s ju stif y in g it, Johns on , 3 6 4 F .3 d a t 1 1 8 9 . A s t o t he fi r s ts t ep, t he undi s put ed evi dence s how s thatO ffi cer s M endez and Zel i g w er e j us t i fi ed i n as ki ng M r s . J os eph t o be i nt ervi ew ed. T heyknew that M rs . J o s e p h w a s th e fir s t o n th e s h o o tin g s c e n e a n d th u s a p o s s ib le c ri m e w itn e s s . M r s . J os eph does notar gue thatthi s j udgm entw as unr eas onabl e. M r s . J os eph’ s appar entar gum enti s thatanyfur therques t i oni ng w as unnece s s arybeca us e s he had a l r eadyt ol d O ffi cerPoul s en thats he di d notobs erve t he s hoot i ng and di d notknow anythi ng. W e do notagr ee. T her e i s no evi dence th a t O ffice rs M e n d e z o r Z e lig k n e w th a t M rs. J o se p h h a d g iv e n a sta tem e n t to O ffi cerPoul s en; i ndeed, t her e i s no evi dence thathers t at ementt o Poul s en pr ece ded M endez ’ s deci s i on t o ques t i on her . N ori s ther e anyevi dence thatthey k n ew , at th e ti m e o f th at de cisi o n , w h at sh e sa id to O fficer P o u lsen . M o reo v er, w hen theyas ked M r s . J os eph t o be i nt ervi ew ed, O ffi cer s M endez and Zel i g knew t hatM r . J os eph had be en i n a s hoot i ng appr oxi m at el ythi r tyt o for ty - fi ve mi nut es earl i er, M rs . Joseph w as the fir ston the scen e foll ow i ng the sho oti ng , and M rs . Jo sep h w as so u p set th at af ter fir st l ea v ing the s ce n e sh e re turn ed , cry ing , to learn of herhus band’ s w el far e. I n herdepos i t i on, M r s . J os eph s ai d s he coul d not “r emem berexac t l y ” w hats he s ai d i n hers t at ementt o O ffi cerPoul s en. R . J os eph D ep. , Supp. A pp. 93. E ven as s um i ng thatM endez knew thatM r s . J os eph had-26-

al r eadygi ven a s t at ement , i tw oul d notbe unus ual , orobj ect i vel yunr eas onabl e, fo r p o lic e to re q u e s tio n a w itn e s s u n d e r s u c h c ir c u m s ta n c e s . A s t o t he l ength of the det ent i on, bas ed on the fa ct s i n the r ecor d, no re a so n a b le ju ryc o u ld c o n c lu d e th a t O ffice rs M e n d e z a n d Z e lig w e re re sp o n sib le fo r M rs. Jo sep h ’s pre su m ed three -an d -a-h alf-h o u r st ayin O fficer P o u lsen ’s c ru is e r a f

te r s h e h a d ta lk e d to h e r h u s b a n d . Li ppoldt , — F . 3 d — , 2 0 0 6 WL 3 2 0 0 8 6 4 , at * 1 1 ; Sc o tt , 216 F. 3d at911. She admi t t ed thats he neve rs poke d ire c tlyto M e n d e z , an d th a t M e n d e z ’s o n lyin v o lv e m e n t w a s in stru c tin g Z e lig to have s om eone i nt ervi ew her . A ppel l ant ’ s A pp. 948, 958. T her e i s no evi dence t hat M end ez or Z el i g k new , or could reas on ablyhav e foreseen, that this request w oul d ent ai l a mul t i - hourdet ent i on i n O ffi cerPoul s en’ s car , orthatei therof t hem had anyaw areness of M rs . Joseph’s si tuati on aft er 1: 45 a. m . Indeed , M rs . J os eph expr es s l yadmi t s i n herr es pons e t o the defendant s ’ s um m aryj udgm ent m o tio n th a t sh e h a s n o k n o w led g e o f e ith e r d e fe n d a n t’s in v o lv e m e n t af ter th is tim e . See i d. a t 9 4 8

– 4 9 , 9 5 8

– 5 9 . So faras t he r ecor d r evea l s , i tw as O ffi cerPoul s en— nott he defe ndant s — w ho w as r es pons i bl e forpl aci ng M r s . J os eph i n the pol i ce c arand w ho w as ( al ong w i t h t w o ot hernon- defe ndantoffi cer s ) aw ar e of he r ci r cumst ance s and the l ength of t i m e of he rdet ent i on. Y ets he r ew ar ded hi m for h is e ffo rts w ith th a n k s a n d a h u g , n o t w ith a law su it.-27-

I f O ffi cerPoul s en w er e a na m ed defendant , the l ength of hers t ayi n hi s car m i ghtw el l r equi r e us t o r ever s e the gr antof s um m aryj udgm ent . B utthe s um to tal o f th e e v id e n c e re latin g to th e tw o n a m e d d e fe n d a n ts is th a t o n e o ffice r to ld a n o th e r to a sk M rs. J o se p h to b e in ter v iew e d , the se c o n d o ffice r c o m p lied w ith t he fir stoffi cer’ s i nst ruct i on , and then bo th leftthe scen e. B ased on these facts , no reas on able j urycou l d co nclude t hat M end ez and Z el i g w ere the b ut- for cause o f M rs. J o se p h ’s p ro lo n g e d sta yin P o u lse n ’s c a r. T h is a b se n c e o f p re d ica te fa c ts es t abl i s hi ng but - forcaus at i on m eans thatM r s . J os eph has notal l eged a co n sti tuti o n al vio lat ion attri b u table to th ese d efen d an ts. A cc o rdin g ly , O fficers M e n d e z a n d Z e l i g a r e e n t i t l e d t o q u a l i fi e d i m m u n i ty. V I . C oncl usi on W e AF F I RM t he d i stri ctcou rt ’s j ud gm ent di sm i ssi ng M r. Joseph’s cause o f a cti o n ag ains t M r. S h ep h erd fo r fa il u re to state a c lai m , an d the d istri ct co u rt ’s gr antof qual i fi ed i m m uni t yt o M r . B ar t l et t . W e al s o AF F I RM t he gr antof sum m aryj ud gm ent i n fav or of S al tL ake C i tybecau se M r. Joseph’s due p rocess caus e of a ct i on i s barr ed byt he doctr i ne of c l ai m pr ecl us i on. A nd w e AF F I RM t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof Li eut enantZ el i g and S a rg e n t M e n d e z o n M rs . J o s e p h ’s F o u rt h A m e n d m e n t c la im s . T h a tl e a v e s u s wi t h t h e p e n d i n g mo t i o n s i n t h e s e t wo c a s e s , wh i c h we r es ol ve as fol l ow s : w e GRANT th e u n o p p o se d m o tio n in c a se n u m b e r 0 5 -4 1 8 1 to s e a l th e b ri e fs a n d a p p e n d ic e s , GRANT t he mot i on i n 04- 4212 t o s tr i ke the-28-

at t achment s t o M r . J os eph’ s m ot i on t o s epar at e appe al s , and DE NY th e m o tio n in 05- 4181 t o s t r i ke the appe l l ee’ s br i ef. E n ter e d fo r th e C o u rt, M ich a e l W . M c C o n n e ll C i r cui tJ udge