### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 10341 D O N A L D W AY N E G O O D , P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee v. F R E D C U R T IS , in d iv id u a llya n din h is o ffic ia l ca p a c ity , D efen d a n t- A p p ell a n t

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i tedS tates D i stri ct C ou rt f or th e N ort h ern D i st ri ctof T exas

B ef ore S T E W A R T , D E N N IS, an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es . H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg e: A p p e lla n t’s M o tio n fo rP a n e l R e h e a r in gis D E N IE D . T h is o p in io n is s u b s tit u te dinp la c e o f th e p r io ro p in io n , G o o dv. C u rtis , __F. 3d __ , 201 0 W L 5 5 0 5 2 0 (5 th C ir . F e b . 1 8 , 2 0 1 0 ). A pp el l ee D on al d W ayn e G ood b rough tsu i tu n der 42 U . S . C . § 1983 against Appe l l antFr ed C u rt i s , a l l e gi ng t hatCur t i s v i o l at e d Goo d’ s r i ght s und e rt he F o u r t h a n dF o u r te e n th A m e n d m e n ts w h e n h e m a n ip u la te dap h o to g r a p h ic l i n eu p i n an ef

f ortt o procure a fal se i den t i f i cat i on f rom t h e vi ct i m i n a rape case. C u r tis ta k e s th is in te r lo c u to r ya p p e a l fr o m th e d is tr ic tc o u r t ’s d e n ia l o f h is m o tio n fo rs u m m a r yju d g m e n t o n th e b a s is o f q u a lifie dim m u n i t y . T h e o n ly United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rch 23, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-10341 Document: 00511059678 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/23/2010N o. 09- 10341

2 is s u e b e fore u s tod a y is w h eth er C u rti s i s en titl ed to qu a l i fi ed i m m u n i ty w i th r e ga r d t o t he a l l e ge d v i o l at i o ns o f G o o d’ s Fo ur t h a nd Fo ur t e e nt h Am e ndm e nt r ig h ts . O n th is lim ite da p p e a l, w e co n c lu d e th a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o r r e c t ly determ i n ed that t h e gen u i n e i ssues of factregardi n g C u rtis ’ s c on du ctw ere m at e r i alt o the den i alo f q uali f i e d i m m uni t y and , t he r e f o r e , D I SM I SS t he a p p e a l. I . F A CT UA L A ND P ROC E DUR A L B A CK GRO UND The fac t s o f

t hi s c as e , v i e w e d i n t he l i ghtm o s tfavor ab l e t o G o o d a s t he no n- m o vi ng pa r t y, a r e a s f o l l o w s . On June 1 8, 1 98 3, G o o d was a r r e s t e d a nd c har ge d wi t h a gg r av at e d r ap e , a gg r av at e d r o bb e r y, a nd b ur gl ar y o f ah ab it at i o n. A ft er n o less th a n th ree trials, G oo dw a s w ron gfu l l y co n victedan dsen ten ced to life im p r is o n m e n t. A fte rs e rv in gth ir te e n y e a r s , s e v e n m o n th s , a n dfiv e d a y s in pri so n, G oo d w as f

i nal l y e xoner at ed byD N Aev i denc e o n D ec em ber22, 2004. G o o d’ s l o ng and unf

o r t unat e pa t h t hr o ught he l e ga ls ys t e m b e ga n o n J une 9, 1 98 3, w he n a m an e nt e r e d t he I rvi ng, T e xa s hom e of Jane D o e , bo und he ra nd h er ei gh t - year ol d dau gh t er an d f orced D oe t o t h e bedroom , w h ere he raped her. Sho r t l y af

t e rt he m an l e f

t , D o e w as a bl e to f

r e e he r s e l f

a nd h e rda ugh t e ra nd c a l l edthe IrvingP olice D ep a rtm en t. T h e crim e sce n e w a s su b seq u e n tly pr o c e s s e d f

o re vi de nce. A tthe s am e t i m e , al o c alho s pit ale xa m i ne d Doe a nd ad m i n i st ered a rape k i t . La t er t h at day, D oe m etw i t h pol i ce and describedher as sa i l antas a w hi t e m al e i n hi s t w ent i es , s i x f ee tt al l , abo ut190 pounds, c l ean s h a v e n , w ith a m e d iu m t o la r g e b u ild , b lo n d is h -b r o w n h a ir , a n dd a r kta n s k in t one. Based on D oe ’ s des c r i pt i on, a com pos i t e s ket c h of t he per pet r at orw as p rep a red an dthe n distrib u tedthro u gh ou t t h e Irv i n g P oli ce D ep a rtm en t. O n June 15, 198 3, G o o d w as ar r e s t e d i n a n unr e l at e d i nc i de nts t e m m i ng from a b on dforfeit u re on a p ri or D W I ch a rg e. C u rti s, w h o w a s n ot as sign ed to th e in v e s tig a tio n o f D o e ’ s ra p e , h a ds u s p e c te dG o o dw a s r e s p o n s ib le fo rce r ta in u n s o lv e dd a y tim e b u r g la r ie s in Ir v in g . A c c o r d in g ly , C u r tis b r o u g h t G o o dto h is Case: 09-10341 Document: 00511059678 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/23/2010N o. 09- 10341

3 o f f i c e f o rt he pur po s e o f

i nt e rvi e w i ng hi m ab o utt he uns o lve d b ur gl ar i e s . Dur i ng t he i nt e rvi e w , Curt i s be c am e ang r y w it h G o o d when he w o ul d no tpr o vi de a ny i n f orm ati on on the bu rgl ari es. C u rt i s p u l l ed ou ta cop y of t h e com posi t e sketc h i n t he D o e c as e a nd i nf o r m e d Goo d that h e loo ke d s o m e w hats i m i l art o t he a s s a ila n t a n dth a t, i f G o o d d i d n o t t h in kth e p ic tu r e lo o k e dlik e h im , C u r tis w o u ld“fixit” to m a k e s u r e th a t itd id . W h en G ood p ersi st ed i n hi s r ef u salt o add ress t h e un solvedbu rgl ari es, C u rt i s t ol d G ood h e w as goi n g t o gethi m charged w i t h D oe’ s rape and t ook G ood o ut s i de o f

hi s o f f i c e t o pho t ograp h hi m f o ral i ne up. Cur t i s pr o c e e de d t o t ak e severalpi ct u res of

G ood. H e repeatedl y al t ered t h e l i gh tset t i n gs on t h e cam era w i t h each p i ct u re i n an ef f ortto m ak e G ood’ s p h ot ograp h b et t er m atc h t h e “ da rk ta n ” sk in to n e o f th e s u s p e c t in t h e p o l i c e s k e tc h . O nc e s at i s f i e d wi t h t he resu l ti n g p h otog ra p h , C u rti s a d d ed i t to a l i n eu p a n dsep a ra tel y p rese n tedi t t o D o e a nd h e rda ugh t e r . Doe ’ s da ugh t e rw as una bl e t o m ak e a n i de nt i f i c at i o n. D o e , o n t he o t he rha nd, i m m e di at e l y s e l e c t e d Goo d o uto f t he l i ne up. She becam e very em ot i on alu pon seei n g G ood’ s p h ot ograp h an d i den t i f i ed h i m as her a ttack er. A s a re su l t, G oo dw a s rea rres tedon Ju n e 1 8 , 19 8 3 , an dch a rg ed w i th ag gr av at e d r ap e , a gg r av at e d r o bb e r y, a nd b ur gl ar y o f aha bit at i o n. Af t e rD o e ’ s i de nt i f

i c at i o n o f

G o o d i n t he pho t o gr ap hi cl i ne up, al ive l i ne up fol l ow edon Ju l y 2 6 , 19 8 3 , con d u ctedbythe D a l l a s C ou n ty S h erif f’ s D ep a rtm en t. T h e parti ci pa n t s i n t h e l i n eu p w ere given specif i c phrases t h at th e perpetrat or u sed du ri n g t h e h om e i n vasi on t o repeat du ri n g t h e l i n eu p. D oe aga i n , an d h er d a u g h te rfo rth e fir s t t im e , id e n tifie dG o o da s th e p e r p e tr a to r . G o o d ’ s fir s t c r im in a l tr ia l, in1 9 8 3 , e n d e din ah u n gju r y . H is s e c o n dtr ia l, i n 198 4, res u l t ed i n a gu i l t y verdi ct , bu t t h e verdi ct w as l ater overt u rned becau se o f pr o s e c ut o r i alm i s c o nduc tunr e l at e d t o t he pho t o gr ap hi c l i ne up. I n 1 98 7, t he g o v e rn m e n t trie dG o o dforath irdtim e , a n dh e w a s c o n v icte dof b u rg la ryof a Case: 09-10341 Document: 00511059678 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/23/2010N o. 09- 10341

4 h abit ati on w i t h i n t en tt o com m i trape. In each of t h e cr i m i n alt ri al s, both D oe a n dh e rd a u g h te rid e n tifie dG o o da s th e a tt a c k e r . I n 2 0 0 1 , t h e D a ll a s C o u n t yC r im in a l D is t r ic tC o u r tN o . 3 g r a n t e dG o o d ’s mo t i o n fo rp o s t - c o n v i c t i o n D N At e s t i n go f th e b i o l o g i c a le v i d e n c e f r o m t h e c r i me scene. Th e D N At estrul ed G ood ou tas D oe’ s at t acker. B ased on t h i s new f i ndi ng, t he Texas C our t of C r i m i nal A ppeal s gr ant ed G oo d’ s state h abeas pet i t i on an d vacat ed hi s se nt enc e o n N ove m ber17, 2004, f oll ow ed byt he D al l as C ount y Cri m i nalD i st r i c tC our t N o. 3’ s di sm i ss al of al lc harge s on D ec em ber22, 2004. O n N ovem ber 17, 2 006 , G ood f i l ed a com pl ai n ti n t h e U . S . D i st ri ctC ou rt f or th e N ort h ern D i st ri ctof T exas aga i n stt h e C i t y of I rvi n g ; t h e I rvi n g P ol i ce D e p a r tm e n t; th e C h ie f o f P o lic e fo rth e C ityo f Ir v in g , in d i v i d u a l l ya n din h is of f i c i alc apac i t y; and C urt i s, i ndivi dual l y and i n hi s of f i c i alc apac i t y, under 42 U . S . C . § 198 3 f

o ra l l e ge d v i o l at i o ns o f t he Fi r s t , Fo ur t h, Fi f t h, Ei ghth, N i nt h, a n dF ou rteen th A m en d m en ts t o th e U n i ted S ta tes C on sti tu ti on an darticl e I, sect i on 19 of t h e T exas C on st i t u t i on . In M arch 2007, t h e di st ri ctcourtdi sm i ssed a ll cla im s a g a in s t t h e Ir v in gP o lic e D e p a r tm e n t, th e Ir v in gC h ie f o f P o lic e , inh is o f f i c i ala nd i ndivi dua lc ap ac i t i e s , a nd Cur t i s , i n hi s o f f i c i alc ap ac i t y. On June 1, 2 00 9, t he di s t r i c tc o ur ta l s o di s m i s s e d all c l ai m s ag ai ns t t he Ci t y o f I rvi ng and t he c l ai m s aga i ns tC ur t i s , i n hi s i ndivi dua lca pa c i t y, b as e d o n a l l e ge d v i o l at i o ns o f G o o d ’ s F ir s t, F ifth , S ix th , E ig h th a n dN in th A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts . S t i l l , t h e di st ri ctcourtdi d n otenti rely di sm i ss G ood’ s c ase. Th e di st ri ct court den i ed C u rt i s’ s m ot i on forp art i alj u dg m en ton the pl ead i n gs an d m ot i on fors um m ar y j udg m e nta s t o G o o d’ s c l ai m s b as e d o n a l l e ge d v i o l at i o ns o f t he Fourt h and F our t ee nt h A m endm ent s as w ell as ar t i c l e I , se c t i on 19 of t he Texas C ons t i tu ti on b ecaus e g enui ne i ss ues of fac tex i st ed as t o w het herC urt i s w as en t i t l ed to qu al i f

i ed i m m u n i t y. T h i s i n t erl ocutory appea lf ol l ow ed w i t h regard Case: 09-10341 Document: 00511059678 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/23/2010N o. 09- 10341

5 t o C u rt i s’ s qua l i f

i ed i m m u n i t y defense i n con n ect i on w i t h G ood’ s cl ai m s un der t h e F ou rt h an d F ou rt een t h A m en dm en t s. I I . S TA NDARD OF RE VI EW

“ [A] n o r de rdeny i ng qua l i f i e d i m m unit y, t o t he ex t e nti tt ur ns o n a n ‘i s s ue of l a w , ’i s i m m ed i a tel y a p p ea l a b l e.” B ehrens v. Pel let i er , 516 U . S. 299, 311 ( 1996) ( quot i ng Mitch ell v. F o rsy th , 4 7 2 U .S . 5 1 1 , 5 3 0 (1 9 8 5 )) (c ita tio n o m itt e d). T h is j u ri sdi ct i on incl u des i n t erl ocutory ap pea l s f rom d en i al s of

m ot i on s f

or s u m m ary ju d g m e n t. At t e be r r

yv . Noco na Ge n. Ho s p. , 430 F. 3d 245, 251 ( 5t h C i r . 2005) (c i t i ng Behre ns , 5 1 6 U .S . a t 3 0 7 ); seealso 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . T h e l i m i t ati on of

our i n t erl ocutory app e ll a te j u ri sdi ct i on t o qu est i on s of l aw prohibi t s our “consi der[ ati on ] [of ] the corr ect n ess of

the pl ai n t i f

f ’ s versi on of t he fac t s. ” C lub R et ro, L . L . C . v. Hi l t on , 568 F. 3d 181, 194 ( 5t h C i r . 2009) ( qu o t a ti o no m it t e d) . I n o t he rw o r ds , “ [t] he e s s e nt i all y l e ga l[i m m uni t y] q ue s t i o n, w h ic h w e tr e a t a s a n e n tit le m e n t d is tin c t fr o m th e m e r i t s o f th e ca s e , is a p p ea l a b l e on l y to th e ex ten t th a t it tu rn s on an i ssu e of l a w [. ]” A t t eberr y , 430 F .3 da t 2 5 2 (s e c o n da lte r a tio n in th e o r ig in a l) (q u o ta tio n s o m itt e d). Th i s m eans t hatt he di st r i c tc our t ’ s f i ndi ng t hata genu i n e factu a ldisp u te e x is ts is afa c tu a l d e te r m in a tio n t h a t t h is co u r t is p r o h ib ite dfr o m re v ie w in gin th is in te r lo c u to r ya p p e a l. Joh n son v. Jon es , 5 15 U . S. 3 04 , 3 13 ( 19 95 ) . Butt he di st ri ctcourt ’ s det erm i n ati on t h at a part i cul ar disp u t e i s m a ter ia l i s a r e vi e w ab l e l e ga lde t e r m i nat i o n. Fo leyv . Uni v . of Ho us t o n Sy s. , 355 F. 3d 333, 337 ( 5th C i r. 200 3) . “T h u s, a defen da n tchal l en gi n g t h e den i alof a m ot i on f

or su m m a ryj u d gm en t on the ba sis of qu a l ifi ed i m m u n i ty m u st be p r e p a red to concede the best vi ew of t h e fact s t o t h e pl ai n t i f f an d d i scuss onl y t h e l egal i ssues r a is e dbythe ap p ea l . ” 

### Free ma n v . Gore , 4 8 3 F . 3 d 4 0 4 , 4 1 0 ( 5 th C ir . 2007) (q u o ta tion om itted ). W i t h i n t h i s l i m i t ed app el l ate j u ri sdi ct i on , “ [t] h i s c ou rtrevi ew s a di st ri ct co u rt’s d en i alof

a m ot i on f

or s u m m ary j u dg m en ton the basi s of qu al i f i ed Case: 09-10341 Document: 00511059678 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/23/2010N o. 09- 10341

6 i m m uni t y i n a 

### § 1 9 8 3 suit d e novo .” Co llie r v. Mon tgom er y , 569 F. 3d 214, 217 ( 5th C ir . 20 09)(citingFree man , 4 8 3F .3 dat 4 1 0); seealso C l u b R et ro , 568 F . 3d at194 

### ; On ti veros v. Cit y of Rosenberg, 564 F .3d 3 79 , 382 (5th C ir . 2009). I I I . DI S CU S S I ON G o o d contends that hi s Fou rt h an d F ou rt een t h A m en dm en tri gh t s w ere violatedw h en C u rti s m a n i p u l a tedG oo d ’ s p i ctu re to crea te an i n a ccu ra te p h oto l i n e u p i n a n e f

f o r tt o p r o c u r e afa l s e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . S p e c i f

i c a l l y , Go o dc l a i ms t h at: ( 1 ) th i s i n t en t i on alef f ortt o cul t ivate an i rreparabl e m i si den t i f i cat i on c o ns t i t ut e s av i o l at i o n o f duepr o c e s s, a n d ( 2) Cur t i s s e c ur e d t he s ubs e que nt ch a rg es l ea d i n g t o G oo d ’ s con victi on w i th ou t pro b a b l e ca u se. W e a d d ress bo th c la im s intu r n . A . G o o d ’

s F o u rte en th A m en d m en t C la im W e t u rn f

i rstt o t h e qu est i on of w h et h er a concert ed ef f orton the pa rtof a po l i c e o f

f i c e rt o “f

r am e ” a s us pe c t by m ani pul at i ng a pho t o f o r a pho t o l i ne up t o pr o duc e afal s e i de nt i f i c at i o n f r o m an e ye w i t ne s s c o ns t i t ut e s a vi o l at i o n o f t he due pr o c e s s r i ght s s e c ur e d b y t he F o ur t e e nt h A m e ndm e nta nd whet he rs uc h a vi o l at i o n was c l e ar l y e s t ab l i s he d a tt he t i m e Cur t i s a c t e d. Thus a ppl yi n g t he rub ri c of

qu al i f i ed i m m u n i t y, w e f

i n d that su ch con du ctw ou l d consti t u t e a vi ol ati on of

t h e F ou rt een t h A m en dm en tan d that anyoff i cer so acti n g w ou l d n ot be e nt i t l e d t o qua l i f

i e d i m m uni t y. Ac c o r di ngly, G o o d ha s r ai s e d ag e nui ne i s s ue of m a terialfa ct su ff i ci en t t o o v e rcom e su m m a ryj u d gm en t on h i s F ou rteen th A m e n d m e n t c la im . C u rti s reli es u p on cas es w h i ch i n vo lv e a test de sign ed pr i m a ri l y to sup press evi den ce w h ere an i den t i f i cat i on m ay be qu est i on able bu tha s not been di sproved to ass ess t h e const i t u t i on al i t y of hi s act i on s. H ow ever, t h i s c ase c onc er ns a sit uat i on w her e t he cr i m i naldefendanthas bee n exo ner at ed and w as w rongly c on vi ct ed becau se – t ak i n g t h e fact s m ostfavorab l e t o G ood – a p ol i ce o f f i c e rde l iber at e l y f

r am e d hi m . The D N A ev i de nc e t hatc l e ar e d Goo d a nd Case: 09-10341 Document: 00511059678 Page: 6 Date Filed: 03/23/2010N o. 09- 10341

7 s e c u r e dh is fr e e d o m a ls o r e m o v e s a l ld o u b ta s to th e in a c c u r a c yo f D o e ’s id e n tific a tio n . T h e re a s o n fo rth e m is id e n tific a tio n , w e m u s t a s s u m e a t t h is s um m ar y j udg m e ntj unc t ur e , w as Cur t i s ’ s c o nc e r t e d e f f o r t s t o m an i pu l at e t he p h o to . T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t’s “ s u g g e s tiv e lin e u p ” s u p p r e s s io n te s t a n n o u n c e din Ma n so n v. B ra th w a ite , 4 3 2 U .S . 9 8 (1 9 7 7 ), is n o t d e s ig n e d fo ra n dd o e s n o t a p p ly i n t h e contextof

a § 1983 sui tf

ol l ow i n g D N Aex on erat i on fora convi ct i on derived f r om poli c e c onducti nt ent i onal l y de si gn ed to pr oc ure a fal sei dent i f i c at i on by u n la w fu l m e a n s . As d i r e c t e d b y o ur de c i s i o n i n G et er v. F ort enb err

y , 882 F . 2d167 ( 5th C i r. 1 9 8 9 ) ( G eter I

I ) , w e c o nc l ude t hat a po l i c e o f f i c e r ’ s kno w i ng e f

f o r t s t o secure a fal s e i de nt i f

i c at i o n by fab r i c at i ng e vi de nc e o r o t he r w i s e unl awf ul l y i nf l ue nc i ng w itn e s s e s is n o t e n tit le dto q u a lifie dim m u n ity . S ee als o D evereau x v. A bbey , 263 F . 3d107 0, 107 5 ( 9th C i r. 200 1) ( en ban c) (“ [W ] e are persuad ed that t h ere i s a cl ea rl y e stab li sh edco n s titution a ldu e p roce ss righ t no t t o b e su bj ected to cri m i n alcharges on the basi s of fal se evi den ce th at w as del iberately fabri cat ed b yth e g o v e rn m e n t.”) ; B re w ste r v . S h a staCo u n ty , 27 F . A p p ’ x 9 0 8 , 91 2 -13 ( 9 th C i r . 2001) (unp ubl i she d) ( ap p l yin g D e v e r e auxw h ere “t h e detec t ives used s ugg e s t ivepr o c e dur e s w i t h t he i nt e nto f o bt ai ni ng an i de nt i f i c ati on o f

[t he p l a i n tiff

], i rres p ective of w h eth er h e w a s i n fa ct gu i l ty”) . B ecau se w e now kn ow w i t h ou ta d o u bt th at D oe’ s i den t i f i cat i on w as act u al l y i n corr ect , w e need not an al yze w h et h er, hy potheti cal l y, t h i s li n eu p su f fered f rom a h i gh “ l i kelih ood of m i siden tifi ca ti on . ” S ee Nei lv. B iggers , 4 09 U . S. 188 , 199
- 20 0 ( 19 72 ) (o r i gi nat i ng t he fac t o r s us e d i n B ra th w a itean al ysi s as ai ds i n assess i n g t h e “li k el ih ood of m is id e n tific a tio n ” u n d e rato ta lityo f th e cir c u m s ta n c e s re v ie w ). O ur a nal ys i s of G oo d’ s Fourt ee nt h A m endm entc l ai m i s i nst ead g ui ded by o urde c i s i o ns i n G et er v. F ort enb err

y , 8 4 9 F .2d 1 5 5 0 (5 th C ir. 1 9 8 8 ) ( G et er I ) , a nd G eter I I. Both G et erc ases i n vo lved a § 1983 ac t i on s t em m i ng f r om an i n d ivid u a l ’ s ar rest, pr ose cu ti on , an dcon victi on f or a rob b eryh e d i dn ot com m i t. Case: 09-10341 Document: 00511059678 Page: 7 Date Filed: 03/23/2010N o. 09- 10341

8 I n G et er I, w e hel d that “ a poli ce of f i cer can n otavailhi m sel f of a qu al i f

i ed i m m u n i t y defense if

he proc u res fal se i den t i f i cat i on by un l aw f

u l m ean s . . . f

or suc h ac t ivi t y vi ol at es c l ear l y es t abl i she d c ons t i t ut i onal pri nci pl es . ” 849 F. 2d at 15 59 . N o ne t he l e s s , w e fo und t he pl ai nt i f f ’ s al l e ga t i o ns t o be t o o co nc l us o r y and r e m a n d e dth e m a tt e rt o t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t fo rf u r th e rfa c tu a l d e v e lo p m e n t. I d. at1 559
- 61. On r e m and , t he pl ai nt i f f s e tf o r t h “ a w e alt h o f

s pe c i f i c s a nd confirm i n g fact u aldetai l s” su p porti n g h i s c l ai m t h at th e of f i cers ha d f

ram ed h im . G eter I

I, 8 82 F . 2da t1 70. N ot w i t h st an di n g t h e factt h at w e ackn ow l edg ed B rat h w ait e i n b o t h G eter I a n d II, n e i t h er opi n i on expressly requ i red or even sugge st ed t hatthe di st r i c tc our tw as ob l i gat ed t o a ppl y B ra th w a ite ’ s “ sugge st ive lin e u p ” s u p p r e s s io n te s t t o th e p la in tiff ’ s cla im u n d e rth o s e fa c ts . S ee G et er I, 8 4 9 F .2 da t 1 5 5 9 ; G eter I I, 8 8 2 F . 2 da t1 7 0 n . 6 . I n s t e a d , i n G e ter II, we u l t i m ately h el d that t h e pl ai n t iff created gen u i n e i ssues of m ater i alfact suff i ci en tt o overcom e qu al i f i ed i m m u n i t y by p resenti n g com petent s u m m ary j u dg m en tevi den ce as t o w h i ch w i t n esses w ere encou ragedt o give fal se id e n tific a tio n s a n dw h a t m e a n s w e r e u s e dto e n c o u r a g e th e w itn e s s e s to w r o n g ly i dent i f y t he pl ai nt i f

f. 882 F. 2d at170. App l yi ng G e ter I and II to th e in s ta n t c a s e , G o o dh a s cle a r lym e t h is burde n att hi s ear l y st age. G oo d al l ege d thatD oe ’ s i dent i f i c at i on w as t ai nt ed by C u rtis ’ s co n d u ct. T h a t ta in t p e rs ists to th is d a y a s D o e still in sis ts o n G o o d ’s gu i l teven af

t er hi s exonerati on by i n di spu t able f orensi c evi den ce. M oreover, G o o d has p r o v i d e d“ s p e c i f i c s a n dc o n f

i r m i n gfa c t u a ld e t a i l s ” r e g a r d i n gt he all e ge d “unl awf

ulm e ans ” : ( 1) Curt i s s t at e d he pl anne d t o f r am e G o o d f

o rfail i ng t o cooperat e; ( 2 ) C u rti s art i f i ci al l y m an i pu l ated G ood’ s ph ot ograp h t o conf orm t o t he c o m po s i t e s ke t c h a nd d e s c r i pt i o n o f D o e ’ s a s s ail ant by dar ke ni ng t he pi c t ur e s he t o o k; a nd ( 3) C u rt i s kno w i ngly pr e s e nt e d t he a l t e r e d p ho t o gr ap h w i t h t he pur po s e o f

o bt ai ni ng a fal s e i de nt i f i c at i o n as r e t ali at i o n f o rG o o d’ s no ncooperati on regardi n g a w h ol l y u n rel ated cr i m e. G ood’ s art i cul ati on of t h ese Case: 09-10341 Document: 00511059678 Page: 8 Date Filed: 03/23/2010N o. 09- 10341

As was the ca se in Ge ter II , our articulation of this “factual b asis” is onlyestabli shed 1 herefor the purposeof consideri ng C urti s’s motion for su mmary ju dgment. “The ultimate truthwillbedetermin edatt rial, and we intimate no view as to whose versionof the facts eventually will prevail .” Ge ter II , 8 8 2F .2 d at 1 7 1 n .1 0 .

9 a l l eg a ti on s th rou gh com p eten t s u m m a ryj u d gm en t evide n ce is suffi ci en t t o c r e a te afac tu a l ba sis forfi n d in gaco n stitu tion a l vio la tion w ith inG o o d ’s 1 F o u r te e n th A m e n d m e n t § 1 9 8 3 cla im . H av i ng f

o und a consti t ut i o nalv i o l at i o n, w e t ur n b r i e f l y t o t he s e c o nd pro ng of

qua l i fi ed i m m uni t y. The Suprem e Courthas r epe at edly hel d t hat

“ gove r nm e nto f

f i c i al s pe r f

o r m i ng di s c r e t i o nar y f unc t i o ns [ e nj o y] q uali f i ed i m m uni t y, s hi e l di ng t he m f r o m c ivil da m ag e s l i ab i l i t y as l o ng as t he i r act i ons coul d reason ably hav e been t h ou gh tconsi st en tw i t h t h e ri gh t s t h ey are al l eged to h a ve viol a ted . ” A n d ers on v. C reigh t on , 483 U . S . 635 , 638 ( 198 7) . Stat ed m ore po i nt e dly, q uali f

i ed i m m u n i t y gen eral ly protec t s “ al lbu tt h e pl ai n l y i nc o m pe t e nt or th ose w h o k n ow i n gly v i olat e t h e l a w . ” Mal ley v . B r iggs , 475 U . S. 335, 341 ( 198 6) . I n t h e i n st an tcase, C u rt i s i s all egedto h ave i n t en t i on al l y secured a fal se id e n t if ic a t io n t h a t p r o d u c e daw r o n g fu l c o n v ic t io n in r e t a li a t io n fo ras u s p e c t ’s fai l ure t o c oo per at e i n an unrel at ed m at t er– a Malley “ kno w i ng vi o l at i o n o f t he la w .” F in a ll y , w e tu r n to C u r t is ’s n o v e l a r g u m e n tth a tth e tr ia l c o u r t ’s sub sequ en tapp rovalof t h e fabri cat ed l i n eu p absolves h i m of res pon sibi l i t y f

or t he unfairt r i ala nd wr o ngf ulc o nvi c t i on itpr o duc e d. Cur t i s do e s no tc i t e a ny c a s e fr o m th is c ir c u it in v o lv in gth e s o -c a lle d“n e u tr a l in te r m e d ia r y” d o c tr in e in t he Fo ur t e e nt h Am e ndm e ntc o nt e xt . Tha ts ai d, a nd tho ughw e dono ta t t e m pt t o a f f i r m at ive l y extendt he do c t r i ne t o t hi s c o nt e xtt o da y, w e f i nd o ur j ur i s pr ude nc e i n t hi s a r e a as a ppli e d t o o t he rc o ns t i t ut i o nalpr o t e c t i o ns in s tr u c tiv e ind e te r m in in gw h e th e rC u r tis ’ s a lle g e dm a lfe a s a n c e e ffe c tiv e ly pr e s e rve d t he c aus alc hai n. W e e xp l ai ne d in Han dv. G ary , 838 F. 2d 1420, 1428 Case: 09-10341 Document: 00511059678 Page: 9 Date Filed: 03/23/2010N o. 09- 10341

10 ( 5th C i r. 198 8) , t h at “ [ a] n i n dep en den ti n t erm edi ary break s t h e chai n of cau sati o n unl e s s i tc an be s ho w n t hatt he de l ibe r at i o ns o f t hati nt e r m e di ar y w e r e i n s o m e w ayt ai nt e d b y t he a c t i o ns of t he de fe nda nt . ” M o r e o ve r , “ [ a] ny m i sdi rect i on of

t h e m agis t rat e or t h e gran d j u ry by om i ss ion o r c om m i ssi on p erp etu a tes th e tain t of the origi n a loff

i ci a lbe h a vior. ” I

d. As s uc h, t o t he e xt e nt th a t th i s d octrine ap p l i es to th e F ou rteen th A m en d m en t, C u rti s’ s fa i l u re to di sc l os e thath e m ani pul at ed the l i neup ort hatD oe ’ s r es ul t i ng t es t i m ony m ay h a v e b e e n ta in te dp r e s e rv e dth e ca u s a l ch a in . Acc o r di ngly, t he di s t r i c tc o ur t c o r r e c t l y de ni e d s um m ar y j udg m e nto n t he Fou rteen t h A m endm entc l ai m . As s uch, t he appea las t o thi s c l ai m m ustbe d is m is s e d . S ee Lyt le v. B exar Cou n ty T ex. , 560 F. 3d 404, 408- 09 ( 5t h C i r . 2009) (w h ere app el l ate c ou rtdeter m i n es t h at fact u aldi spu t e i s m ater i al , di sm i ssalof th e in te r lo c u to r ya p p e a l is a p p r o p r ia te ), cer t . den i ed , 7 8 U . S. L . W . 3 44 7 (U . S. M a r . 2 2 , 2 0 1 0 ) (N o . 0 9 -8 5 1 ). B . G o o d ’

s F o u rth A m en d m en t C la im M u ch of

C u rtis ’ s Fou rt h A m en dm en tbri ef i n g on app ealha s add ress ed i ss ues w ellbe yond t he s c ope of ourl i m i t ed i nt er l oc ut or y r evi ew . “ [W ] e have j u ri sdi ct i on onl y t o deci de w h et h er t h e d istr ict courterr ed i n concl u di n g as a m att er of

l aw t h at of

f i ci al s are n oten t i t l ed t o q u al i f i ed i m m u n i t y on a given set of fact s. ” Ki n n ey v. W

eaver , 367 F . 3d337 , 347 ( 5th C i r. 200 4) ( en ban c) . M ore speci f i cal l y, our revi ew of a d e n ia l of

sum m ary j u dg m en tbased on qu al i f i ed i m m u n i t y i s li m i t ed excl u sivel y t o t h e qu est i on of w h et h er “ a cert ai n course of c o n d u c t w o u ld , a s am a tt e ro f la w , b e o bje c tiv e lyu n r e a s o n a b le in lig h t o f c le a r ly e s t a b l i s h e dl a w. ”

I d. a t 3 4 6 ; s ee als o Mitch ell v. F o rsy th , 472 U . S. 511, 528 ( 198 5) (“A n app el l ate c ou rtrevi ew i n g t h e den i alof t h e defen da n t ’ s c l ai m of i m m u n i t y n eed n otconsi der t h e corr ect n ess of t h e pl ai n t i f f ’ s vers i on of

t h e fact s, n o re v e n d e te r m in e w h e th e rth e p la in tiff ’ s a lle g a tio n s a c tu a llys ta te acla im . A ll it n e e d d e te r m in e is a q u e s tio n o f la w : w h e th e r th e le g a l n o r m s a l l e g e d ly Case: 09-10341 Document: 00511059678 Page: 10 Date Filed: 03/23/2010N o. 09- 10341

11 vi ol ated by the defenda n tw ere c l earl y est abli shed at t h e t i m e of t h e chal l en ged act i on s . . . . ” ) . A ccor di n gl y, w e can n ota n d do n otreach the qu est i on of w h et h er G ood all eges a cl ai m of fal se arr estor m al i ci ou s p rosec u t i on nor do w e add ress t h e vari ou s argum en t s abou tw aiver by j u di ci ala dm i ssi on or t i m el i n ess u n der W a lla cev. K

a to , 5 4 9 U .S . 3 8 4 (2 0 0 7 ), in th e c o n te x t of th is in te r lo c u to r ya p p e a l. T u rni n g t o t h e qu est i on s properl y bef ore us, w e concl u de that C u rt i s i s not en t i t l ed to qu al i f

i ed i m m u n i t y on G ood’ s Fou rt h A m en dm en tcl ai m s. C on t rary to C u r tis ’ s a r g u m e n ts , “[t] h e in itia tio no f c r im in a l ch a r g e s w it h o u t p r o b a b le cau se m ay setin for ce even t s that run af ou lof expl i citconst i t u t i on alprot ect i on

–th e F o u r th A m e n d m e n t if th e a c c u s e dis s e iz e da n da r r e s te d , fo re x a m p le . . . a n dsom e su ch cl a i m s m a yb e m a d e u n d er 4 2 U . S . C . § 19 8 3 . ” Cast e l lano v. Fragozo , 3 52 F. 3d9 39 , 9 53
- 54 ( 5t h Ci r. 2 003 ) (en ba nc ) . “As a ppli e d t o t he qu al i f i ed i m m u n i t y i n qu i ry, t h e pl ai n t i f f m u stshow t h at th e of f i cers coul d n ot h ave reason ably bel i evedt h at they h adprobab l e cause t o arres tt h e pl ai n t i f f f or a n y crim e.” O ’

D wyer v. Nelson , 3 10 F . A pp ’ x 74 1, 7 45 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 9) (c i t i ng D evenpeck v. A lf

ord , 5 43 U . S . 1 46 ( 200 4) ) . C on t rary to C u rt i s’ s asser t i on s, G ood w a s n o t m e r e lys u bje c te dt o “ [a ]n a d d itio n a l lo c ko n th e d o o ro f aja il ce ll . . . .” I nst ead, t he s t at em ent of und i sput ed sum m ar y j udgm entfac t s m akes c l eart hat G oo d w as ar r es t ed o n t w o di f fer entw ar r ant s on t w o dif fer entdat es . G oo d w as f i r s ta r r e s t e d o n J une 1 5, 1 98 3, o n ab o nd f o r fe i t ur e o n apri o rD W I charge. D u ri n g t h e Ju n e 1 5 detenti on , G ood w as i n t errogat ed byC u rt i s and t h e ph ot os at th e hea rtof

t h i s c ase w ere t ak en . O n Ju n e 18, 198 3, G ood w as arres t ed f or t h e rape an d bu rgl ary of D oe on a w arran tis sued u pon C u rt i s’ s p robable cau se af f i da vit . Thi s se c o nd ar r e s tfo r m s t he f o unda t i o n of

G o o d’ s Fo ur t h Am e ndm e nt c l ai m . Att he t i m e he s w o r e o utt he pr o ba bl e c ause a f f i da vitf o rt he s e c o nd arrest , C u rt i s had no evi den ce bef ore hi m su ggesti n g G ood w as the p erpetr ator o th e rth a n th e fa ls e id e n tific a tio n h e p r o c u r e dfr o m D o e . A c c o r d in g ly , C u r tis c o ul d no tha ver e as o nab l y be l i e ve d t hathe ha d p r o ba bl e c aus e t o a r r e s tG o o d, Case: 09-10341 Document: 00511059678 Page: 11 Date Filed: 03/23/2010N o. 09- 10341

Again, we note thatwe do not reachthe question of whetherGood has stated a claim 2 uponwhichrelief mayb e grante d if heha s, a s Curtisalleges , conce de d hisf als e arrest cl aim . Given our narrow j uri sdiction, we merelya d dr ess the du al que stion s of whether Curti s’s conduct, a s alleged, constituted aviol ation of Good’s FourthAmendment rights and whether a reasonable official would have known thatsuch conduct was prohibite d. 12 an d the di st ri ctcourtd i d n oterr i n d et erm i n i n g t h at th e gen u i n e i ssues of fact w ere m ater i alsuch tha the i s not en t i t l ed to sum m ary j u dg m en ton qu al i f i ed i m m u n i t y i n t h e i n st an tcase. 2 IV . C ONC L US I ON I n ke e pi ng w i t h G et er I a nd II, w e concl u de that kn ow i n g ef f ort s t o sec u re a f al se i den t i f

i cat i on by fabri cat i n g evi den ce orot h erw i se un l aw f u l l y i n f l u en ci ng w i t ne s s e s c o ns t i t ut e s av i o l at i o n o f t he dueprocess r i ght s s e c ur e d b y t he F ou rt een t h A m en dm en t . Apl ai n t i f f need not un dertake the i m possibl e t ask of s at i s f yi ng t he B rat h w ait e t est w h ere an of f i c er ’ s i nt ent i onalc onductw as des i gned t o ar t i f

i c i al l y pro duce pre c i se l y t he so r t of w i t nes s c er tain ty that ot her w i sej ust i f

i es t he a d m i ss i on o f s ugges t ive l i neups and t he c r i m i nal de fe nda ntha s b e e n e xo ne r at e d i n t he m e ant i m e . M o r e over , w e f i nd thata ny r e a s o n a b le o ffic ia l w o u ld k n o w th a t fra m in g a n in d iv id u a l fo racr im e th e yd id notc om m i tby se c uri ng s uch an i dent i f i c at i on r ep r es ent s a c ons t i t ut i onal violati on . A ccord i n gly, th e a p p ea lm u st be dism i sse don h i s F o u r te e n th A me n d me n tc l a i m. W it h r e s p e c tto t h e F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t , C u r t is ’s e ffo r t s to s e c u r e G o o d ’s arrestnotw i t h st and i ng th e factt h at C u rt i s af f i rm ativel y kn ew he m an u fact u red p rob a b l e ca u se co n sti tu teda clear l y e stab l i sh ed viol a ti on of G oo d ’ s F ou rth A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts a t t h e tim e o f th e a r r e s t s u c h t h a t th e a p p e a l o n th is cla im m u s t a ls o b e d is m is s e d . F o rt h e f

o r e g o i n gr e a s o n s , we DI S M I S S a n dR EMAND. Case: 09-10341 Document: 00511059678 Page: 12 Date Filed: 03/23/2010N o. 09- 10341

13 Case: 09-10341 Document: 00511059678 Page: 13 Date Filed: 03/23/2010