## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 10

- 1318 J EFFE RY A. L A WS ON, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v . R OBERT V ERUCH I, D ET EC T I VE , B ADG E N O
. 167, na m ed i n h i s i ndi vi dualc apa ci ty, a nd C ITY OF R O CK FO RD , anI l l i no i s m uni ci palc o r po r at i o n, D efend a nts-A pp ellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, We stern Div isi on. No . 08 C50079

—Fr ederic k J . Kap ala, Judge
.
A RG UE D S EP TE MBE R 8, 2010

— D ECI DE D J AN UA RY 28, 2011

Befo re P OSNER, M A NI ON, a nd H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Judges. M A NI ON, C ircu it Judge. J eff er y A. Law son ( “J effer y A.” ) w as arr es te d for a ss au ltin g K im b e r l y C olv in an d h eld i n j ai l f orm or e than one m onth be f or e he w as re l eas ed w hen pol i ce l ear ned t h e al l ege d culpr i t was re ally Jeffre y W . L aw s o n ( “Je ffre y W .”). Follo w in g h is re lea se , Jeffer y A . su ed th e o ffice r w h o s w o re ou t h is2 N o. 10

- 1318

ar re st w ar ra n t, R oc kfo rd P olic e D et ec tiv e R ob er t V er u c h i, as w el l as the Cityo fRock f or d (“ Rockf or d”), under 42 U
. S. C. § 1 983 . Je ff er y A. al l ege d that Ver uchi ar re ste d hi m witho ut pro babl e ca use i n vi ol ati on of the Fo urth A m endm ent, and Rockf or d vi ol ated hi s co nsti tuti onal ri ghts by not havi ng p olic i es i n pla ce t o preve nt such w ro ngful ar re sts
. J eff er y A. al so al l ege d pend ent s tat e l aw c l ai m s. The di st r i ctc o ur t gran ted Ver uch i a nd Ro ck f o r d s um m ar y j udg m en t o n the § 1 98 3 cl ai m s an d then decl i ned to exer ci se j uri sdic tio n o n the sta te l aw cl ai m s. J eff er y A. appeal s. W e r eve rs e.

I. O n Jun e 9, 2007, K im berly Colvin w as in a Ta rget store i n Ro ck f o r d, I l l i no i s, wi thhe r fr i end G ene si s M at th i es en, an d Ge ne si s’ s y o ung ers ibl i ng s Arc adi a M atthi es ena nd To ny F r an co . I ns i de th e store, th er e was a v erba l c o nf r o nt at i o n b etwee n Co l vin a nd a n un kn o wn m ana nd w om an . Col vi n deci ded i t was be st to l eave the sto re , but as she and her f rien d s go t int o her cari n the Targ et parking l ot, they disc ove re d that the co up l e had f ol l owed th em o ut
. Co l vin dr o ve o ff, b uta t a stop li ghts he e x i t e d h e r v e h i c l e , a p p a r e n t l y i n o r d e r t o w r i t e d o wn th e co upl e’ s l i ce ns e pl at e number

. Af te r s ee i ngthe unknown m an approa chi ng her, C olvin tr i ed to r eente r her car, but as she did so, he sl am m ed the car dooro n her head; Colvin suff er ed a l ong cut o n one si de ofher f ace re quir i ng 40 to 50 st i tches

. The n ex t day, Col vi n re port ed the i nci dent to a patro l offi ceri n R ock f or d, describi ng the per petra toras a w h ite m ale in h is 4 0s , ab ou t six fee t t all a n d ap p ro x i-N o. 10

- 1318 3

m ate l y 1 90 pound s. Col vi n al so i nfo rm ed the offi certhat h e r at ta c ke r d ro ve a gr ee n ve h icle an d p ro vid ed h im w i th the l i cense pla te num berwh i ch A rca dia had typed i nto her cel l phone. The l i cense pla te w as for a 20 06 S a t ur n r e g i s t e r e d t o a Do nn y La ws o n i n Ro c k f o r d. Det ec ti ve Ve r uch i o fthe Ro ck f o r d Po l i ce De par tment was a ss i g ne d t o f o l l o w u p o n Co l vin’ s co m pl aint
. Ve r uch i ca l l ed the Do nny La wso n r es i den ce a nd Pa ts y La wso n, Donny’s wife, i nfo rm ed Veruchithatthe Saturn be

l onge d to her son J eff re y W

. and that sh e would have hi m cal l Ver uchi. Donny and Pats y Lawson’s so n “Jeffrey W

. ” is not the inn ocen t “Jeffe r y A

. ” w ho is the p lai nt iff i n thi s ca se

— n o t i c e th e d i ffe r e ntsp e l l i n g s o fth e n a me an d di ff er en t m i ddl e i ni ti al s. W e wi l l us e th e di ff er en t spel l i ngs a nd m id d l e ini ti al s thro ughout the o pini on t o cor re ctl y i d en tify the “ J eff ” o fwh om we are speak i ng, but o bvi ousl y when the ac tor s i n thi s ca se spoke o f J eff rey ( orJ eff er y) theydi d not s peci fy the spel l i ng o f th e n am e o r th e m id d le in itia l. A fterspeak i ng with Patsy, but b efore hear i ng fro m J eff re y W ., V eruchi re cei ved a tel ephone ca l l fro m Fr an k M on ta lba n o w h o w as a c ou rt ro om ba iliff in R oc kfo rd . M on t a l b a n o i n f o r m ed V er u c h i th at h is daughter St ephan ie w as J eff re y W

. ’ s g i rl f ri end and that Step ha nie ha d told him th at Jeffrey W

. got into a n a ltercati on w ith som eone ar ound the Tar getst or e o ver the weeke nd

. M ontalbano sta ted thathe woul d have hi s daughterand J eff re y W

. cal l hi m . A bout thi rty m i nut es l at er, J eff r ey W

. co nt ac te d Ve r uch i
. Af te r Ve r uch i ask ed J eff re y W

. wh et h erhe was wil l i ng to co m e t o the pol i ce s tat i on t o disc uss th e c ase , J eff re y W

. as ked4 N o. 10

- 1318

V eruchi cl aim s that he l eft a m es sage f or at torney Heckinger, 1 b u tJ e f f e r y A . c l a i m s t h a tth a tis im p o ss ib l e b e c a u se V e r u c h i ’s polic e r ep o rti ncorrec tl y identi fie d Je ff rey W

. ’ s att orney as Hec ke r s on, a nd the re is n o a t t or ne y Hec ke r s oni n Roc kf or d. Att or ne y Hec ki nger al s o de ni ed r ec ei vi ng a ny m es s age fro m V eruchi

. W hether V eru ch i ever cal le d H ecki nger, how ever, is irrelev an t to the qu estion on ap p eal. App a r e nt l y, J e ff e r y A. h a d a r e c or d a nd thu s h i s ph ot og r a ph 2 a p p e a r e d i n th e Wi n n e b a g o C o u n t y J a i l s y s t e m. h o w mu c h t r o u b l e h e w a s i n. Ve r u c h i t o l d J e ff r e y W. th e y c o u l d d i s c u s s th a tw h e n th e y me ta n d J e ff r e y W. a g r e e d t o c o me i n th e f o l l o win gmo r n i n ga t9 : 0 0 a . m. H owever, the next d ay Jeff re y W

. l eft a m ess age f orVer uchi that he w oul d not m eetwith hi m and that V er u c h i sh ou ld co n ta c t h is a tt or n ey Jeff H ec kin ge r if he had any questi ons. 1 By thi s t i m e, tho ugh, Ver uchi ha d a l re ady ar ra nged to co n d u c t a p h ot o a rra y w ith C olv in an d A rc a d ia. (It i s uncl earfro m the re cor d w hy Veru chi di d not ar range t o show the photo ar ra y t o Tony F ra nco o r Genesi s M atthi eso n. ) To obtain a photo gr aph of Jef f r ey W ., V er u c h i se ar c h ed th e W in n eb ag o C ou n ty Jail sy s t e m. T h e t r a n s c r i p t o f V e r u c h i ’ s d e p o s i t i o n s a n d t he defe nd an ts ’ st ate m ent o fundisputed f acts st ate that V e r u c h i l o o k e d u p “ J e ff r e y L a ws o n ” i n th e j a i l s y s t e m. I t appe ar s th atthi s is an inadve r te nte r r o r o n the de f en d an ts ’ pa r t an d tha t th eymean t to a ss er t th atVe r uch i l oo ked up “J eff er y Law son” because that ’ s whose photo

gr aph Veruchi pu t in t he photo ar ra y, al ong w i th se ver al o th erpho to g r aph s o fs i m i l arl o o k i ngmen. 2N o. 10

- 1318 5 A t thi s poi nt, wh at hap p en ed is disputed and beca use of the s i gni fi cance ofthe dispute, we provi de a deta i l ed des cr i pti o n ofthe oppo singve r si o ns ofe ve nt s, e xc er pting the r el evantdeposi ti on t est i m ony w here hel pfu l. A ccor ding to Veruchi, afterexpl ai ni ng the photo ar ra y proce du re s t o Col vi n, h e pl aced si x photos i n fro nt o f her al l ato nce. Ver uchi m ai ntai ns thatCol vi n i denti fi ed J eff er y A. as the per son w ho had as saul ted her, si gned th e b a c k o f J e ff e r y A. ’ s p h o t o g r a p h a n d i n i t i a l ed th e p h otogr aphs of the othe r i nd i vi du al s i n the l i neup. In hi s depo si ti on, Ve r uch i t es ti fi ed th athe s ho wed the sa m e pho to lineup t o Arc adi a M at th i es o n, a g ain l ay i ng a l l s i x ph o t o g r a ph s o ut o n the t a b l e . Ve r uc hi s t a t e d that atfi r stArc adi a sa i d s he was n’ t su r e i fs he c o ul d i den

tify t h e s u bj ect bu t tha t the n sh e po inted to J effery A

. ’s photog ra ph and sa i d she was abo ut 75 per cent sure that h e w as t h e a tt ac ke r. V er u c h i cla im s t h at it w as on ly about tw enty seco nd s be tw een the ti m e Arcadi a fi rs t l oo ked a t th e photo gr aphs and her sta ti ng she was 75 percen t su re thatJ eff er y A. w as the a tta cker, and that du ri ng tha t t i m e he did notsa y a nythi ng to A rca dia. On the other hand , Col vi n sta ted i n her d eposi ti on that Veruch i pre sente d her w i th a photo ar ra y o fse ver al in d ivid u als

— m or e than six, she b el i eve d

— an d tha t sh e i den ti fi ed on e o fthe i ndi vi dual s as the pe r so n who had atta cked her, but that th e ind i vi du alshe had i de nt i fi e d wa s n o tJ e ff e r y A. Co l v i n e xp l a i ne d: [ V e r u c h i ] l a i d o u t th e p h o t o s i n f r o n t o fme . A s k e d me to l oo k o verthem car efull y, se ei ng i fany one of them caughtm y e ye as t h e m an thatat tack ed m e.6 N o. 10

- 1318 Il ooked them over. Ii d en tified th e one p icture that l oo ked exac tl y l i ke the guy thatat tack ed m e th at n igh t. H e a sk ed m e if I w as su re i ft h a t w as h im , i f Iwant ed t o tak e m or e t i m e a nd l oo k o verthe re st of the photo s a gai n. B as ica lly he l ai d them o ut o ne ata tim e again in front of m e and kep t saying, “A re you sure t h i s i s the guy ?” W e went thr ough them m aybe thr ee o ff o urt i m es , a nd It o l d hi m tha t was the g u y ; a n d h e s a i d , “ Ma yb e th i s wi l l h e l p y o u. ” He sh o wed me a no th erpho tograph o fa woman who Ii m m ed iat el y r ec o g ni ze d a nd i den ti fi ed as the w om an thatwas w i th hi m thatni ght. H e s ai d th at wa s th e g i r l f r i e n d o fth e ma n th a ta t t a c k e d me . He fl i pp ed ove r one of the photos, and he sai d that w as th e bo y f r i en d o fhe r a nd a sk ed m e to g o a he ad an d si gn i t; and Isi gned the photog ra ph, ass um i ng tha t th atwas the man tha t Iha d already p ic k ed o uto fthe photos, not ev en thi nki ng tha t i t was a diff er ent, yo u k no w, pho to
. Ig ue ss Iwou l dn’ t unde r st an d why th er e woul d b e a di ff er en t pho to c ho se n. U p o n f u rt h er qu es tio n in g, C olv in ex p lain ed th at w h ile sh e ha d s i g ne d the b ac ko fJ eff er y A. ’s p hoto g r aph, s he ha d no t se enthe pho to g r aphs he s i g ne d o ffo n, a s Ve r uch i “h ad al r ea dy fl i pped i t o ve r and l ai d i t o utne xtt o the g i r l f r i end

. ” And th ata t th i s po i nt, Co l vin a dded, Ve r uch i had the gi rl f ri end’s pic ture i n fro nt o fm e. Then he had al l the photos fl i pp ed ove r. H e h ad the one photo ki nd o fl ower than the othe rs ; and wh en Ii denti fi ed he r, he pul l ed th atpho to o ve r ups ide d ow n a nd s a i d th a tw a s th e b o y f r i e n d o fth e g i r l a n d a s k e d me to si gn the bac k o fi t.N o. 10

- 1318 7 I n h erde po si ti o n, Co l vin was th en a sk ed: “ Lo o k i ng th roug h those ph otos in th at ex hibit, d o you s e e th e re th e pho to y o u i ni ti al ly i den ti fi ed as the pe r so n who h ad d on e t h is t o yo u ? ” A n d C olv in res p on d ed : “N o.” A rca dia’ s m othe r al so provi ded a si gned decl ar ati on contr adic ti ng Ver uchi’ s deposit i on t est i m ony. Because A rca dia w as a m i nor, herm othe r acco m panie d her to the polic e stat i on a nd was pres ent when Veruchi sho w ed he r the p hot o array. A ccord ing to A r c ad ia’s m oth er, Arc adi a l o o k ed atthe pho to g r aph s an d t old Ve r uch i tha ts he di d n o t re cogni ze the a tta ckeri n the photo ar r ay, a nd tha t f o r a per i o d o f fi ve to te n m i nut es , Ve r uch i kept say i ng t h in gs l i ke, “Are y ou sur e y ou don’ t s ee hi m ?” Agai n and again, A rca d ia sa i d that s he co uld not i den ti fy the man fr o m the pho to s. F i na l l y, a fter Ve r uch i kept pu shi ng, A rca dia sel ecte d o ne of the photos, alth ou gh i n d icating sh e w as on ly abou t 75 p ercen t sure it w as th e attac ker. Ve r uch i ’ s ve r si o n o fe ve nt s was the one tha t he in c lu d ed in t h e a ffid av it h e s u b m itt ed in s u p p or t o f h is appl i ca ti o n f o r a n a r r es t warrant f o r J eff er y A. La wso n. B ase d o n V eru ch i’ s affidav it, a state j ud ge issued a w arra nt forJ eff er y A.’ s a rr est
. On J u n e 15 , w hi l e dri vi ng to w or k, J eff er y A. w as a rr est ed. H e r em ai ned i n j ai l f or 34 days unti l he w as re l eas ed on J uly 19 an d all ch ar ges w er e d ro p p ed . (W h i le b ein g h eld in jail, Jeffer y A . d ev eloped a s taph i nfe cti on, causing hi s l eg to sw el l to tw i ce i ts nor m alsi ze. ) I t i s uncl earexact l y how J eff er y A.’ s m i si denti fi cati on was di sco vered , but i t a pp ear s that a n em p loy ee in t h e p u b lic d efe n d er ’s o ffice kn ew Ste p h an ie8 N o. 10

- 1318 and the J eff re y W

. she w as dati ng and r eal i zed fro m the photo gr aph ofJ eff er y A. that the wrong pe rson had been ar re ste d. T h e sta te’ s a tto rney ’ s o ffi ce info rm ed Ve r uc hi tha t th er e ha d b ee n a mis i den ti fi ca ti o n a nd i nstr ucted hi m to co nti nue i nves tiga ti ng the cr i m e. A fterJ eff er y A.’ s r el eas e, A rca dia’ s br othe r i denti fi ed J e ff r e y W. a s th e a t t a c k e r . A s o fJ un e 20 0 8 , J e ff r e y W. has no t be en char ged with the a ssa ult

. A fter his r elease, Jeffery A

. sued Veru ch i an d Roc kford und er§ 1983

. J eff er y A. al l ege d that Ver uchi arre st ed hi m witho ut pro babl e ca use i n vi ol ati on o fhi s F ourth Am en dm en t r i g ht s an d Ro ck f o r d v i o l ated h i s co ns ti tu
ti o na l r ight s byno t ha vingpo l i ci es i n pl ac e to pr ev en t su chwro ng fula r r es ts
. J eff er y A. a l so i nc l ude d pe nd en t st at e law c l ai m s. The di st r i ctc o ur t g r an te d Ve r uch i a n d R o c k f o r d s umma r y j u d g me n to n th e § 1 9 8 3 c l a i ms and th e n de c l i ne d t o e xe r c i s e j ur i s di c t i o n o n the s t ate l aw cl ai m s. J eff er y A. appeal s.

II. On app eal, J eff er y A. ar gues that the di str i ct c ourter re d i n g r a n t i n gth e d e f e n d a n t s s u mma r y j u d g me n t
. We re vi ew a g ra nt o fsum m ar y j ud gm ent deno vo , v i ewi ng th e f ac ts i n the l i g htmos t f av o r ab l e to the no n- m o ving p ar ty , i .e., Jeffer y A

. Tre nt aduev. Re dm on , 619 F. 3d 648, 65 2 ( 7th Ci r . 20 10 )

. As no te d ab o ve , J eff er y A. su ed Ve r uch i f o r f al se a r r es t i n v i o l at i o n of h is F o ur thAm en dm en t rig h ts . “Inord er to p re va il on a c l a im of an arr es t in v i o l a t i o n o f the F o ur th Am e nd men t, the pl a i nt i ff [ ] m ust show that [ he w as] ar re ste d without probable c au se;N o. 10

- 1318 9 p ro b ab le c au se is an ab so lu te d e f en se to su c ha c laim .” G onz alez v. City of E lgin , 578 F.3d 526 , 53 7 ( 7th Cir. 2009). Pr o babl e ca us e exi st s i f, a t th e ti m e o fthe a r r es t, the fac ts an d circ u m st an c es w ith in th e d efe n d an t’s kn ow ledg e “a r e su ffi ci en t to war r an t a pr ude ntpe r so n, or o ne ofr eas onabl e ca uti on, i n bel i evi ng, in the ci rcum sta nces sh ow n, th at th e s u sp ec t h as co m m itt ed

. . . an offe n se .” C h e l io s v. Heav ener, 520 F.3d 678 , 686 (7th C ir. 2008). M or eo ve r, [ w ] hen a pol i ce o ffi cer, act i ng in go od f ai th, o btains a w ar ra n t a n d ac ts w ith in its s c op e, h e h as en ga ge d in n o offic ial m isc on d u c t; it is th e m ag ist ra te ’s re sp o n s ibi l i tyt o de te r m i ne whethe r the o ffi ce r ’ s al l eg at i o ns con st i tu te pr o babl e ca us e an d i t i s th e m ag i st r at e’s er ro r i fthe ar re st i s la ter dete rm i ned to have been unlawful

. I n such a case , the m agi str ate ’ s i ssuance ofthe w ar ra nt shi el ds the office r f ro m l i abi l i ty f or the i l l ega l ar re st. O lso n v . T

yler, 771 F.2d 277, 281 (7th C ir. 1985). H ow ev er , “a w ar ra n t d oe s n ot ere c t a n im p en et ra b le bar ri erto im peachm ent ofa w ar ra nt affi davi t. ” Id. Rat he r, [ i ] fan o ffi cersubm i tte d an affi davi t that co ntai ned sta tem ents h e knew to be f al se orwould have known were f al se had h e no t r eckl ess l y di sr ega rded the t ruth a nd no accura te i nfor m atio n suffi ci ent t o consti tute probabl e ca use a tte nd ed the f al se sta tem ents, noto nl y i s hi s co nd uct the act i ve cause of the i l l ega l ar re st, but he cannotbe sai d to have acte d in an objectively reason able m an ne r. Id.10 N o. 10

- 1318 I n thi s ca se, J eff er y A. cl ai m s tha t h e present ed su ffi ci ent e vi dence thatVer uchi knowingl y incl ud ed f al se s ta te m en ts i n the ar r es t war r an t affi dav i t an d that w i thout thos e f al se sta tem ents, pro babl e ca use w as l acking to ar rest hi m . W e a gr ee. W hi l e there was probabl e ca use t o bel i eve thata m an nam ed “Je ffre y” ( spe l l i ngun k no wn) La wso n h ad at ta ck ed Col vin, vi ew i ng the f acts i n the l i ght m ost f avo rabl e t o J eff er y A., there i s abso l utel y no ev i dence thathe was th e “Jeffrey” L aw s o n w ho h ad attac ked Colvin. Rath er, i fCol vi n’s deposi ti on t est i m ony i s t rue, she did not i denti fy J eff er y A . a s the a tta cker, but had i denti fi ed anothe r i nd i vi d ual

. I n turn, thatwould m ean that Veruchi ’ s a rr estwarra nt appli cati on f al sel y s tat ed that Col vi n had i denti fi ed J eff er y A. f ro m the photo array . Su b m itt in g a kn ow in gly fals e s ta te m en t p re c lu d es relian c e o n an arr es t w ar ra n t. Id. O n ap p ea l, V er u c h i co n tin u es to m a i n ta in th at C olv in ha d i n fact ide nt ified Jeffery A

. , poi n t in g to Colvin’s si gnatur e o n the backo fJ effer y A.’ s photo gr aph to supp or t hi s v er si on of t he ev ents. H owever, as detai l ed abov e, Col vi n expla i ned i n d et ai l how the photo ar ra y w as c on d u c ted and i fherst or y i s t rue, Ver uchi tr i cked Col vi n i nto si gni ng tha t photogra p h

. Ver uchi al so poi nts to A rcad ia’s i d en tification of Jeffery A

. as the at tack er, but ev en as sum i ng Arcadia had i denti fi ed J eff er y A. as V eru ch i claim s ( a n d not as h er m oth er had clai m ed ), Ar c a di a ’ s i de nt i fi c a t i o n mer e l y i nd i c a t e d tha t s he was 75 perce nt sur e th at J eff er y A. w as the a tta cker

. That w oul d n ot support probabl e ca use where the a ctual vi cti m i denti fi ed another i nd i vi du ala s the a tta cker( asN o. 10

- 1318 11

B eca u se A rca d ia’s id en tificatio n d oe s no t pr o v i d e a b asis 3 f or pro babl e c aus e i n l i ght of Col vi n’ s depos i tion te s t i m ony, we n e e d n o t d e c i d e wh e th e r th e d e c l a r a t i o n s u b mi t t e d b y A rcadia’ s m other w as adm is sible. The d efendan ts had m oved to s tr ike Arcadia’ s m other’ s declaratio n , b ut the dis tr ic t c ourt deni ed th e m ot i on t o s t ri ke as m oot
. On appe al, the defen d a n ts d o n o t r ea sse rt th ei r c h a lle n g e t o th e d ec la ra tio n . C olv in st at ed in h er d ep os itio n ), ab se n t s om e o th er ev idence co nnecti ng J eff er y A. to the o ff ense. 3 T h e d ist ric t c ou rtd isc ou n te d C olv in ’s d ep os itio n te st im ony, co ncl ud i ng tha t s he was p ro babl y upsetthat she h a d c a us e d the wr o ngi nd i v i du a l t o b e a r re ste d an d t h at she w as thus tr yi ng to avo i d any r esponsibi l i ty f o r J e ff e r y A. ’ s a r r e s t
. T h a tmi g h tma k e a c o n v i n c i ng cl osing ar gum ent, bu t that i s a questi on f orthe j ury, not th e j ud ge. T he district cou rt also foun d J effe ry A

. ’s th eory incred ibl e, p ositi ng that un d er Jeffery A .’s theory Ve ruchiwas wai tingf o r a c ha nc e to fr ame h i m a nd th e n j u mp e d a ti tw h e n a no t he r ma n w i th th e s a me n a m e wa s a c c u s e d o fc o mmi t t i n ga c r i me . B u tJ e ff e r y A. claim s a m uc h m ore straightforw ard theory

— th atVe r uch i th o ug ht th at he was the a tt ac k era nd was j us t tr y i ng to hel p the ca se al ong w hen the vic tim w as unabl e t o iden tify him

. J effery A

. also cou nt ers tha t C olvi n ’s version of the even ts is m uc h m ore l ikel y t h an Veru ch i’ s because Ver uchi’ s v er si on o fthe eve nts would m ean that tw o w i tness es i denti fied an i nnocent m an

— som eone w ho e ven Ver uchi adm i ts d oe s no t l oo k l i ke J e ff r e y W.

— w ho a m azi ngl y ha d the s am e fi rs t a nd l ast na m e as the a lle g e d a ttac ker. I t is not f or us (any m ore12 N o. 10

- 1318 th ani t was f o r the di st r i ctc o ur t) , tho ug h, to j udg e th e cre dibi l i tyo fthe c o m pet i ngv er si o ns

— tha ti s a que sti on f o r the j ur y . W ha t i s for us t o de ci de i s whethe r, r ea di ng th e e vid en c e in th e ligh t m os t f a v o ra b le t o Je ffer y A ., J eff er y A. ha s pr es en te d s uffi ci en t ev i den ce that Ve r uch i knowingl y incl ud ed f al se inf or m ati on i n the ar re st w ar ra nt appli cati on a nd thatpro bab le cause did not su p p or t t h e a rre st . C olv in ’s d ep os itio n te st im on y, in w hi ch she u ne qu ivocall y states that she d id n ot iden tify J eff er y A

. a s he r a tt ac k er, s uppo r ts thi s co nc l us i o n. And i fVer uchi had knowingl y incl ud ed thi s f alse i nfo rm ati on, then h e also would not be e nti tl ed to qual i fi ed i m m unity b ecause i t was cl ear l y e stabl i shed “ that a war r an t r eque stv i o l at es the F o ur thA m en dm en t i fthe re questi ng o ffi cerkno w i ngl y, i ntenti onal l y, o r w i th re ckl ess d isr egard f orthe tr uth, m ake s f al se sta tem ents in r e q u e sting th e w arran t and the false statem en ts w ere n ec es sa ry to th e d et er m in at ion t h at a w ar ra n t s h ou ld i ssue. ” K nox v. Sm it h , 342 F.3d 65 1, 65 8 ( 7 t h C ir. 20 03 ). See M ichael C. v. Gres bach , 52 6 F

. 3d 1008 , 10 13 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) ( “I fthe ri ght was ‘ cl ear l y e stabl i shed, ’ the offi ci alis not enti tl ed to qual i fi ed i m m unity fro m sui t. ”)

. A ccor dingl y, th e d istri ct cou rt erred in gran ting V eru ch i su m m ary j ud gm ent. T h e d istrict cou rt also gran ted the C ity ofRoc kford su m m ary j ud gm en t beca us e it con clud ed that J effery A

. ’s und er l yi ng cl ai m a gainstVer uchi w as w i thout m er i t. H ow ev er , as e x p lain ed ab ov e, Jeffe ry A . pr es e n te d su ffici ent e vi dence thatVer uchi had knowingl y inc lu d ed f al se i nf o r m at i o n i n the a r r est wa r r an t affi dav i t, thus j usti fyi ng a tr i alo n hi s cl ai m again st Ver uchi. The Ci tyN o. 10

- 1318 13

o fRo ck f o r d do es no t prese nta ny a l te r na ti ve a r g um en t f or affi rm ance and we l eave i t to the dist ri ct c ou rt to consi der o n re m and w hetherRock f or d is enti tl ed to su m m ary j ud gm en t on an oth er basis. T he d istri ct cou rt also d eclined to ex ercise j urisd iction over Jeffe r y A

. ’s pen den t st at e l aw c l ai m s be ca us e i t ha d g r an te d the defe n d ants sum m ar y j ud gm ent o n the f edera l cl ai m s. Acco r di ng ly, thos e cl ai m s l i k ewi se s ho ul d b e r ec o ns i de r e d o n r e man d. R ul e 3 6 s ha l l a pp l y o n r e man d.

III
. T h e d e p o s i t i o n t e s t i mo n y i n th i s c a s e p r e s e n t s t wo sta rk l y di fferent v er si ons ofev ents. Giv en the pro cedural postur e o fthi s ca se, we m ust a ccept Col vi n’s versi on as t r ue

— w hich m ean s tha t C olvi n d id n ot iden tify J eff er y A. as her att acke r and that Ver uchi f al sel y s tat ed i n the ar re st w ar ra nt thatshe had

. A ccepti ng the se f acts as tr ue , Je ffery A. has s uffi ci entl y s tat ed a c l ai m f or f al se ar re st und erthe Four th A m en dm ent a nd acco r di ng l y the di st r i ctc o ur t er r ed in g r an tingVe r uch i s u mma r y j u d g me n to n t h i s c l a i m. T h e r e f o r e , we R EV ERSE th e g r a n to fs u mma r y j u d g me n tt o V e r u c h i
. We l i kewis e R EV ERSE the d istri ct cou rt’s grant of su m m ary j ud gm ent to the Ci ty ofRock f or d, as that deci si on was p r e mi s e d o n th e f a i l u r e o fth e c l a i m a g a i n s tV e r u c h i
. We R EMA ND pursuant to Rule 36 f orfurtherpro ceedi ngs consi ste nt with thi s o pini on, and the dism i sse d stat e l a w c l a i ms s ho ul d a l s o b e c o ns i de r e d a ne w o n r e man d.

1- 28- 11