# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 6- 26 81

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Ch arl es Brad fo rd Odo m

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

Ken an Kaiz er

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t

fo r th e Dis tri ct of No rth Dako ta - Bi sm arck

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Apri l 4 , 20 17

Fil ed : J ul y

26 , 20 17

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re SM ITH, Chi ef J ud ge , ARNOLD and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

SHEPHERD, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

St at e pr is on er Ch arl es Odo m ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s 1 gr an t of su m m ary

jud gm en t an d di sm is sa l wit h pr ejud ic e in fav or of Ken an Kaiz er, a fo rm er Bi sm arck

po li ce of fic er, in Odo m ’s 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 act io n se ek in g m on et ary da m ag es

. Odo m

1 The Hon or ab le Dan ie l L. Hov la nd

, Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t

fo r th e Dis tri ct of No rth Dako ta

.al le ge s th at Kaiz er vi ol at ed hi s co ns ti tu ti on al r i g h t s b y de li be rat el y or reck le ss ly

gi vi ng pa rti al ly in accu rat e te st im on y in a pr ob ab le cau se he ari ng

. A f t e r two pr io r

rem an ds

— se e Odo m v. Kaiz er

, 63 8 F. App ’x 55 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (p er cu ria m ); Odo m

v. Kaiz er

, 41 7 F. App ’x 61 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 1 1 ) ( p er cu ria m )—t he di st ric t co ur t fo un d

t h a t K a i zer is en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y

. Hav in g juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C.

§ 1 29 1, we af

fir m

.

I. Ba ck gr ou nd

W e rev ie w de no vo th e di st ric t cou rt’s gran t of sum m ary jud gm en t, “ vi ewin g

al l ev id en ce an d dr awin g al l reas on ab le in fere nc es in fav or of th e no nm ov in g pa rty.”

Jo ne s v. Fro st

, 77 0 F.3 d 11 83

, 11 85 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ). “ Su m m ary jud gm en t is pr op er

whe n th ere is no ge nu in e di sp ut e of m at eri al fact an d th e pr ev ai li ng pa rty is en ti tl ed

to jud gm en t as a m at te r of law.” Id

.

On Apr il 25

, 20 05

, Kaiz er ga ve pa rti al ly i n a c c u r at e or al te st im on y in a

pr ob ab le cau se he a r in g th at ge ne rat ed an arre st warra nt fo r Odo m fo r ch arg es to

whi ch Odo m ev en tu a l l y p l ed gu il ty, in cl ud in g fel on y po ss es si on of dr ug

pa rap he rn al ia an d m is de m ean or po ss es si on of m ari juan a.

The in ci de nt rel ev an t to Kaiz er’s te st im on y oc cu rred fif te en m on th s earl ie r in

Ja nu ary 20 04 aft er Bi sm arck po li ce res po nd ed to a 91 1 cal l fro m Ri dd le Jo hn so n who

ha d lo ck ed hi m se l f in a ho te l ba th ro om at th e Sel ect In n an d was se ek in g po li ce

as si st an ce be cau se Odo m was th reat en in g hi m wit h ph y si cal ha rm fo r fai li ng to pa y

a dr ug de bt

. U p o n e nt eri ng th e ho te l ro om whe re Jo hn so n was lo ck ed in th e

ba th ro om

, of

fic ers fo un d dr

ug pa ra phe rn al ia i n pl ai n vi ew al on g wit h Odo m

, Jo hn so n,

an d Gale n Sm it h— to who m th e ro om was reg is te red

. Kaiz er, a Bi sm arck dr ug ta sk

fo rce de te ct iv e, was cal le d to th e sc en e by res po nd in g of fic ers an d as su m ed th e ro le

of le ad in ve st ig at or

. Odo m ad m it te d own in g a du ffel ba g co nt ai ni ng a sm al l am ou nt

of m ari juan a lo cat ed in a ve hi cl e in th e h ot el pa rk in g l ot

.

-2

-Odo m was th e reg is te red oc cu pa nt of a di ffer en t ho te l ro om in th e Sel ect In n at th e

ti m e o f th e in ci de nt

.

Dur in g t he pro ba bl e cau se he ari ng fif te en m on th s l at er i n Ap ril 20 05 , Kaize r

accu rat el y ga ve swo rn or al te st im on y th at (1 ) Jo hn so n to ld of fic ers t h a t Odo m

th reat en ed to ph y si cal ly ha rm hi m if he di dn ’t pa y hi s dr u g d e bt

, an d (2 ) dr ug

pa rap he rn al ia wit h vi si bl e dr ug res id ue was fo un d in th e ro om in whi ch Odo m was

pr es en t. Howev er, Kaiz er in accu rat el y te st ifi ed (1 ) fro m m em or y

, th at th e ro om was

reg is te red to Odo m whe n it was act ua l l y reg is te red to Sm it h, an d (2 ) fro m fau lt y

in te rp ret at io n of an ev id en ce rece ip t, th at th e m ari juan a was fo un d in th e ho te l ro om

whe n i t was act ua ll y

fou nd in Odo m ’s du ffel ba g i n a ve hi cl e in th e p ark in g l ot

.

O n M a r c h 20

, 20 07

, Odo m fil ed hi s fir st § 19 83 act io n ag ai ns t m ul ti pl e

de fen da nt s, in cl ud in g Kaiz er, al le gi ng fal se in fo rm at io n was pr ov id ed to su pp or t hi s

arre st an d se ek in g di sm is sa l of st at e ch arg es al on g wit h da m ag es fo r pa in

, su ffer in g,

an d m en ta l an gu is h. W e su m m ari ly affi rm ed th e di st ric t co ur t’s pr es erv ic e di sm is sa l

of th at cas e. Odo m v. Bu rle ig h Cn ty. Dete nt io n Ct r.

, 36 9 F. App ’x 76 7, 76 8 (8 th Ci r.

20 10 ) (p er cu ria m ).

On Decem

be r 2, 20 10

, Odo m fil ed th is § 19 83 act io n pr o se se ek in g m on et ary

da m ag es an d na m in g on ly Kaiz er as a de fen da nt

. Odo m al le ge d th at Kaiz er vi ol at ed

hi s co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s by in te nt io na ll y or reck le ss ly pr ov id in g fal se in fo rm at io n in

su pp or t o f t h e arre st

. Afte r th e di st ric t co ur t’s pr es erv ic e di sm is sa l, th is co ur t

rev ers ed an d rem an de d fin di ng th at Odo m ’s al le ga ti on s th at Kaiz er “ kn owi ng ly ga ve

fal se in fo rm at io n whi le te st ifyin g in su pp or t of is su an ce of an arre st warra nt

. . . were

su ffi ci en t to st at e a cl ai m th at hi s Fou rth Am en dm en t rig ht s were vi ol at ed .” Odo m

,

41 7 F. App ’x at 61 1 (n ot in g th at a “ warra nt ba se d on [an ] aff i d a v i t c on ta in in g

de li be rat e fal se ho od or reck le ss di sr eg ard fo r tru th vi ol at es [th e] Fo ur th Am en dm en t;

[an ] of fic ia l who cau se s su ch de pr iv at io n is su bjec t to § 19 83 li ab il it y ” (ci ti ng Bag by

v. Br on dh av er , 98 F.3d 10 96 , 10 98 (8t h C ir. 1 99 6) )).

-3

-Su bs eq ue nt ly, th e di st ric t co ur t gr a n t ed su m m ary jud gm en t to Kaiz er

co nc lu di ng th at Odo m ’s gu il ty pl ea was a co m pl et e de fen se to Odo m ’s § 19 83 cl ai m

.

Howev er, we rev ers ed an d rem an de d aga in

, fin di ng th at Odo m ’s gu il ty pl ea di d no t

fo recl os e hi s § 19 83 c l a i m be cau se Odo m ’s cl ai m was fo r vi ol at io n of hi s

c o n s t i t u t i on al rig ht s in co nn ect io n wit h th e is su an ce of th e arre st warra nt —n ot fo r

arre st wit ho ut pr ob ab le cau se

. Odo m v. Kaiz er

, 63 8 F. App ’x at 55 4. W e ob se rv ed

th at an of fic ia l is su bjec t to § 19 83 li ab il it y fo r vi ol at io n o f th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t

if he or s h e o b t a i n s a “ warra nt ba se d up on an affi da vi t co nt ai ni ng ‘del ib erat e

fal s e h oo d’ or ‘reckl es s di sr eg ard fo r th e tru th ,’ ” ci ti ng Bag by

, 98 F.3 d at 10 98

(q uo ti ng Fran ks v. Dela ware

, 43 8 U.S. 15 4, 17 1 ( 1 9 78 )). Id

. (in te rn al qu ot at io n

m ark s om it te d)

. Howev er, we n ot ed th at “ qu al ifi ed im m un it y is ap pr op ria te fo r [a]

de fen da nt accu se d of su bm it ti ng [a] reck le ss ly fal se affi da vi t if a co rrec te d affi da vi t

wou ld st il l pr ov id e pr ob ab le cau se to ar r e s t o r se arch ,” ag ai n ci ti ng Bag by

. Id

. (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. W e ad vi se d th at “ th e di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld de ci de

whe th er Kaiz er is en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y on th e reco rd be fo re th e co ur t.” Id

.

at 55 4 n .1.

Fo ll owi ng ou r in st ru ct io ns to ru le on th e qu al ifi ed im m un it y cl ai m

, th e di st ric t

co ur t fo un d th at Kaiz er is en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y

, an d th eref

or e, to su m

m ary

jud gm en t, be cau se hi s f

au lt y te st im on y was no t kn owi ng

, reck le ss

, or in te nt io na l.

Odo m no w app eal s t he di st ric t co ur t’s ad ve rs e g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t.

II . Anal ys is

“ Offi cer [Kai zer] is en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y un le ss th e ev id en ce vi ewed

f a v o r a bl y to [Od om ] su pp or ts a fin di ng th at Offi cer [Kai zer’s] co nd uc t vi ol at e d a

co ns ti tu ti on al r i g h t

, an d th at co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht was so ‘clear ly es ta bl is he d’ at th e

ti m e of th e al l eg ed vi ol at io n th at a reas on ab le of fic er wou ld ha ve kn own th at hi s

co nd uc t was un la wfu l.” Ro hr bo ug h v . Hall , 58 6 F .3d 58 2, 5 85 (8t h C ir. 2 00 9)

.

-4

-A reas on ab le o f f i c e r wou ld kn ow th at it is un la wfu l to us e de li be rat e or

reck l e s s f a l s e ho od s in a pr ob ab le cau se he ari ng

, an d th eref or e, Odo m ’s rig ht to be

free fro m su ch co nd uc t by of fic ers was “ cl earl y es ta bl i s h e d

, ” f ul fil li ng pa rt of th e

qu al ifi ed im m

un it y te st

. Bag by

, 98 F.3 d at 10 98 -9 9 ( “ A warra nt ba se d up on an

affi da vi t co nt ai ni ng de li be rat e fal se ho od or reck le ss di sr eg ard fo r th e tru th vi ol at es

th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t.” ( in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) ).

Howev er, Kaiz er is en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y be cau se pr ob ab le cau se fo r

th e arre st warra nt fo r Od o m on th e ch arg es of po ss es si on of m ari juan a an d dr ug

p a r a p h e r n a li a wou ld ha ve be en pr es en t ev en if Kaiz er’s te st im on y ha d be en

co m pl et el y accu rat e at th e ti m e. Id

. at 10 99 (n ot in g th at ev en if de fen da nt is accu se d

of su bm it ti ng reck le ss te st im on y

, “ qu al ifi ed im m un it y is ap pr op ria te

. . . if a co rrec te d

affi da vi t wo ul d st il l pr ov id e pr ob ab le cau se to arre st or s earc h” ); se e al so Bl oc k v

.

Dup ic

, 75 8 F.3 d 10 62

, 10 64 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (n ot in g th at an of fic er “ is en ti tl ed to

qu al ifi ed im m

un it y if hi s affi da vi t, su pp le m en te d by th e om it te d fact s, st il l su pp or ts

a p ro ba bl e cau se fin di ng ”).

Pro ba bl e cau se fo r an arre st warra nt ex i s t s w he n th ere is a “ su bs ta nt ia l

pr ob ab il it y th at a cri m e ha s be en co m m it te d an d th at a sp eci fic in di vi du al co m m it te d

t h e c rime.” Bru ne r v. Bak er

, 50 6 F.3 d 10 21

, 10 26 (1 0t h Ci r. 20 07 ) (in te rn a l

qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. “ The in qu iry is a co m m on se ns e, pr act ic al on e ba se d on th e

to ta li ty-of-t he -ci rcu m st an ces .” Bl oc k

, 75 8 F.3 d at 10 64 (in te r n a l q u ot at io n m ark s

om it te d) (ci ti ng Ill in oi s v. Gate s

, 46 2 U.S. 21 3, 2 3 0 ( 19 83 )). “ W he th er pr ob ab le

cau se ex is te d is a le ga l qu es ti on rev ie wed de no vo .” Uni te d St at es v. Harri s

, 61 7 F.3 d

97 7, 9 78 (8t h C ir. 2 01 0) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

.

Am pl e fact s su pp or te d th e is su an ce of th e arre st warra nt fo r O d o m w i t ho ut

K a i z e r’s in accu raci es

. Fi rs t, Odo m ad m it te d own ers hi p of th e du ffel ba g whe r e

m ari juan a was fo u n d

, a n d t ha t fact al on e was en ou gh fo r pr ob ab le cau se to arre st

Odo m on th e ch arg e of m ari juan a po ss es si on

. Cf. Uni te d St at es v. Perd om a

, 62 1 F.3 d

-5

-74 5, 74 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (fi nd in g th at ev en th e sm el l of m ari jua n a o n an in di vi du al

pr ov id ed pr ob ab le cau se to arre st th at pe rs on ). Lik ewis e, Odo m ’s pr es en ce in a ro om

wit h dr ug pa rap he rn al ia i n p la in vi ew—i nc lu di ng m et al sm ok in g de vi ces wit h

co cai ne res id ue

, a sp oo n wit h bu rn ed co cai ne res id ue

, a gl as s m ari juan a sm ok in g pi pe

wit h bu rn ed res id u e

, an d ot he r pa rap he rn al ia —an d a pe rs on at th e sc en e accu si ng

Odo m o f be in g a dr ug en fo rcer pr ov id ed pr ob ab le cau se fo r is su an ce of th e arre st

warra nt fo r po ss es si on of dr ug pa rap he rn al ia whe th er th e ro om was reg is te red to

Odo m or no t. See Uni te d St at es v. Hol m

, 83 6 F.2 d 11 19

, 1 1 2 2

- 2 5 ( 8t h Ci r. 19 88 )

(fi n d i n g d e f

en da nt ha d co ns tru ct iv e po ss es si on of dr ug s se iz ed at a th ird -p art y ’s

res id en ce whe re th ere was ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce th at de fen da nt was a so ur ce of th e

dr ug s, pa rti ci pa te d in tra ns po rta ti on of th e dr ug s to th e ho us e, an d ex erci se d joi nt

co nt ro l o ve r th e d ru gs ).

Thu s, fo r th e reas on s no te d ab ov e, Kaiz er is en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y as

a m at te r of

law.

II I. Co ncl us io n

Fi nd in g no ge nu in e di s p u t e o f m at eri al fact an d th at Kaiz er is en ti tl ed to

qu al ifi ed im m

un it y as a m at te r of la w, we affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of su m m ary

jud gm en t an d d is m is sa l wi th pre jud ic e in fav or of Off

ic er Kai zer.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-6

-