## 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

- 2000 R ANDYM UCH A, P laint if f-A ppell ant, v. V I LL AGE OF O AKB R OO K, a muni ci pal i ty, a nd T HOMASS HE AHA N , i n h i s o ffi ci ala nd in d ivid u al c ap ac ity , D efend a nts-A pp ellees.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 1:07- cv-05350

—Wi ll iam T. H art, Judge
.
A RG UE D N OVE MBE R 29, 2010

— D ECI DE D F EB RU AR Y 14, 2011

Befo re B AUER, W OO D a nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges . B AUER, Cir cu i tJudg e . S er gea nt Randy M ucha w as ar re ste d in 2006 f orunl aw fully r equesting a cri m i nal b ac kg ro u n d ch ec k. A fte r th e p ro se c u to rs d ro p p ed all charg es aga i nst hi m , M ucha fi l ed a ser ies ofco m pla i nts i n both federa l and sta te cour t. The o nl y federa l clai m to su rvive the d efend an ts’ m otions t o d ism iss w as M uc ha ’s2 N o. 10

- 2000 f al se ar re st cl ai m . U pon the p arti es’ cr oss m oti ons f or su m m ar y j udg m en t, the di st r i ctc o ur t en te r ed j ud gm en t i n f a v o r o fth e d e fe n d a n t s . T h i s a p p e a l f o l l o we d. We a ffi r m.

I . B AC KGR OUND I n 200 4, A cti ng Pol i ce Chi efS tev e Lar son ass i gned Se rg eant Rand y M u cha the ta sk ofco nd ucti ng an i nt erna l i nv es ti g at i o n int o o ffi ce r mis co nduc t. Hi s i nvest i gat i on r eve al ed that squad cars fre quentl y par ked ou tside the Ga i k s’ ho m e f o r l o ngpe r i o ds o ft i m e, c au sing M uc ha to w ond er w he th er som e po li ce o fficers w ere si tting idl e o n the j ob. M ucha’s suspi ci ons w er e no t w i thout m er i t, and at l eas t o ne o ffi cerwas dis ci plined f or im proper l y par ki ng o utsi de the Gaik s’ r esi dence. This w as M ucha’s fi rs t e ncounterwith the Gai ks. I n J an ua r y 2 00 5, Offi ce r Be n Kado l ph r epo r te d r ec ei ving a pho ne c al l fr o m F r an ces G ai ko n h i s ho m e te l eph o ne n u m b er ev en th ou gh h e h ad n ev er giv en G aik h is conta c t inf or m ati on. M ucha beca m e co ncer ned that pol ice offi cer s had pro vi ded the Gaik s with an i nter nal po l i ce l i stc o nt ai nin gthe na m es , a ddr es se s, a nd pho ne num ber s o fal l Oak Br oo k pol i ce. A dd i ng t o h is gener al dist rusto fthe Ga iks , M ucha dis cove re d that F ra nces Gaikwas one ofthe pri m ar y o rg an i zer s o fan a dvocacy gr oup nam ed C itize ns Fo r a Bett erGovernm ent, o r CB G, w hi ch publi cal l y c ri tic ized the Oak Br oo k Po l i ce Dep ar tm ent. T ow ar d th e en d of Jan u ar y, M u c h a info rm ed h is s u p er io r s th at he was no t i nv es ti g at i ngthe Ga i k s an d tha t heN o. 10

- 2000 3 had neverco ntacte d them

. Con tr ar y t o these r epres entations, however, M ucha had cre ate d “l i nd al uci nd a, ” a f al se el ectr oni c i denti ty, and sentFr ances Gaika ser i es of e-m ails in o rd er to infilt ra te C B G m ee tin gs . Th es e e -m ails quick l y won Frances Gaik ’ s t rust, and w i thi n days M uch a ha d a r r an g ed f o r t wo a g en ts t o a ttend an d r e portbac ko n a CB G me e t i ng . Muc ha the n dr a ft e d a re buttalto CB G’s cri ti ci sm s a nd post ed hi s r ebutta l o n th e po l i ce uni o n web si te
. Thr ee da y s late r, M uch a lea rn ed th at Fra n c es G aik h ad co m p lain ed of th is posti ng to hi s s up er i or s. On F eb r ua r y 1 , 2 00 5, M uch a us ed th e Law Enf o r ce m en t A genci es D ata Sy ste m ( “LE A DS”) to r un a cr i m i nal bac kgrou nd che ck on Fran c e s G aik. On ly p oli ce offi cers h av e a c c es s t o L E A D S, an d t h e ir u se of th is s ys te m is h ea vily reg u lat ed an d res tr ict ed

. O n e su c h res tr ict ion is th e proh ibi tion agains t usin g L E A D S f or person al pu rposes . W hil e una war e th atM uch a ha d r un a c r i m i na l hi st o ry ch ec k, the Ga i k s fi l ed a ci vi l r i g ht s l aws ui t ag ains t th e Villag e ofOak Br oo k, M ucha, and the Vil l age o fOak Broo k pr ose cutor
. They a l l eged that M ucha att em pted to sti fl e F ra nces Gaik ’ s fre edom o fexpre ssi on o n ma t t e r s o fp u b l i c c o n c e r n b ys p y i n go n th e G a i k s ’ h o me an d se n d in g s u rre p tit iou s e -m ails t o F ra n c es G aik . A lthough M u c ha has si nce a dm i tte d to these al l ega ti ons, w hen the Gaik s depose d M ucha, he t est i fi ed under oath that he di d not hav e a ny l aw enf or cem ent b ase s f or i nter acting w i th Fr ances Gaik, that he did not i n fact i nv es ti g at e th e Gai k s, an d th at he di d no t cr ea te the fict ion al e lec tr on ic a c c ou n t “ lin d alu c in d a.”4 N o. 10

- 2000

O nly i n rare ci rcum stances not pres ent here is prosec utori al 1 di s c re t i on s ubj ec tt o j udi c i al s c ru t i ny. M eanw hi l e, i n M ar ch 2005, A cti ng Pol i ce Chi efLars on w as re placed by Pol i ce Chi efThom as Shea han. S i nce a l l o fthe abo v e e v e nt s h a pp e ne d p r i o r t o S he a ha n’ s a ppoi nt men t, S he a ha n c o ul d n o th a v e kno wn o fthe se eve nts unl ess h e w as i nfo rm ed ofthem byM ucha or so m e o th er ind ivid u al. M or e than a y earl ate r, i n Jul y 2 006, the Gaik s s ubpoenaed the I l l i noi s S tat e Po l i ce an d d i sco ver ed that M ucha had re quested a c rim i nal hi sto ryr epor t o n Fr ances Gaik

. A pp ro xi m ate l y tw o w eek s l ate r, pol i ce offi cer s ca l l ed M uc ha and ask ed hi m wh etherhe r an a ba ckg ro und checko n Fr ances Gaiki n Feb ruar y 2 005. M uc ha r e pl i e d, “ Ido n’ tr e c a l l, ” wh i c h he lat era dm i tte d w as a l i e. Giv en M u c ha’ s r esponse to thi s questi on, to gether w i th al l o therf acts kno w n to S heahan o n Augus t 16 , 2 00 6, S he ah ano bt aine d a war r an t an d ar re ste d M ucha f orunl aw fully r equesting a cri m in al hi st o ry c he cki n v i o l at i o n o f§ 1 8( H ) o fthe Uni f o r m Co nvi cti on Info rm ati on Act, 20 I LC S 2635 /1

. Pro secuto rs ev entual l y di sm issed al l char ges ag ai nst Mu c h a . S o o n th e r e a ft e r, M u c h a fi l e d m u l t i p l e c l a i ms

1 inbo th st at e a n d fed er al c ou rt ; t h e o n ly fed er al c laim su rv ivin g th e d efe n d an ts ’ m ot ion s to d ism iss w as h is § 19 83 f al se ar r es t cl ai m . Upon th e par ti es ’ cross m o ti o ns f orsum m ar y j ud gm ent, the dist ri ct c ou rtgr anted j ud gm ent in f avo r ofthe defe nd ants on t h e f al se ar re st cl ai m an d di smi ss ed M uch a’ s st at e l aw cl ai m s w itho ut p rej u d ice . M u c h a t im ely ap p ea led

.N o. 10

- 2000 5 I I . DI S C US S I ON W e r evi ew the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s g ra nt o fsum m ar y j ud gm en t i n f av o r o fthe de fen d an ts de no vo , c o ns trui ng allf acts and reason able inference s i n M uc ha ’s f avor. Su m m ar y jud gm en t in fav or of th e d e f e n d an ts is pr o pe r o nl y i fthe p l e a di ng s , di s c o v e r y ma t e r i a l s , di scl osur e s , a nd a ffi da v i t s de mon s t r a t e n o g e nu i ne i s s ue o f m ate ri alf act such thatthe defe nd ants ar e e nti tl ed to j ud gm en t as a m atter of l aw . Fed

. R. Civ. P. 56(c). M uch a m ak es t wo a r g um en ts o n a ppea l, a r g ui ng fi r sttha t he w as f al se l y a r r es te d a nd s ec o nd tha t th e defe nd ants do not have quali fi ed i m m unity. W e di sag re e.

A. Pr o ba bl e C a us e t o Ar r e s tMuc ha M ucha cont en ds that he was f al sel y a rr est ed and see ks re lief u n d er 42 U .S.C . § 19 83 (20 10 ) . T o s u c c ee d on th is c laim , M u c h a m u st p ro ve th at Sh ea h an lac ke d p ro b a b le c au se to ar re st h im
. See Willia m s v. R o drig uez , 50 9 F
. 3d 392, 398-99 (7th C ir. 2007). A s an initialm atter, w e affirm the d istri ct cou rt’s fi ndi ngtha t S he ah andi d no t l ea r n o fthe b ackgr o und ch ec k o n F r an ce s Gai k unt i l J ul y 20 06

. W hile M uch a te st i fi ed th athe c o ul d no t r ec al l w hen o r whethe r he tol d Sheahan about the b ackg ro und check, S heahan tes ti fi ed und eroa th thathe di d not l ear n ofthe back

gr ou n d ch ec k u n til Ju ly 3 1, 20 06 . B ec au se M u c h a’s te st im ony i s inconcl usi ve, i t ca nnot byit se l fcr eat e a ge n u in e fa c tu a l d isp u te
. See Stein ha uer v. D eG o lier, 35 9 F
. 3 d 4 8 1 , 4 8 5 n . 1 ( 7th Cir

. 20 04) ( dem onst ra ti ng tha t6 N o. 10

- 2000 i nconcl usi ve te s t i mon y c a nn o t b y i t s e l f c r eat e a ge n u in e fa c tu al d isp u te ); O utla w v. New k irk, 25 9 F. 3d 833, 83 7 ( 7th Ci r. 2007) ( sta ti ng tha t “ a f actualdi spute i s ‘ genui ne’ f or sum m ar y j ud gm ent pu rpos es onl y when th er e i s ‘ su ffi ci en t evi den ce f av o r i ngthe no nm o ving partyf ora j ury to r etur n a v er dictf orthatparty’ ”) ( ci ti ng Ande rs on v. Libe r ty L ob b y, Inc . , 47 7 U.S

. 24 2, 24 9 ( 19 86 ) )

. W e th er efo r e affi r m the di st rict c o ur t’ s fi ndi ng that, vi ew i ng al l f ac ts i n the re cor d m ostf avo rabl e t o M uc ha , i t is p rop er to as s u m e t ha t Shea ha n d id n ot learn ofthe back gr ound check unti l J uly31 , 20 06. W e no w tu rn to w h et h er Sh ea h an p os se ss e d p ro b ab le c au se in A u gu st 20 06 to arr es t M u c h a fo r u n law fu lly re questi ng a cri m i nal bac kgr ound check. Probabl e ca use e x i s t s i f“ a tth e t i me o fth e a r r e s t, th e f a c t s a n d c i r c u msta nces w i thi n the offi cer ’ s know l edge a re suffi ci ent t o wa rr an t a pr ude ntpe r so n, o r o ne o fr ea so nabl e ca ut i o n, i n b el i ev i ng, i n the c i r cum stanc es s ho wn, tha t th e suspect h as co m m i tte d, i s co m m i tting, o r i s about to com m i t an o ffense. ” G onz alez v. City of E lgin , 57 8 F
. 3d 526, 53 7 ( 7th Ci r. 2 009) ( ci ti ng M i ch igan v. D e Fi l l ippo , 44 3 U .S. 31, 37( 1979 ) )

. Probabl e ca use r equi re s o nl y that a probab i l i ty orsubst anti alchance ofcr i m i nal act i vi ty exi sts ; i t doe s no t r equi re the exi ste nce o f cri m i nal act i vi ty to be m or e like ly tr u e t h an n ottru e. See P urv is v. O est, 61 4 F .3d 71 3, 72 2- 2 3 ( 7 t h C ir. 20 10 ); M ann oi a v. Fa r r ow , 47 6 F .3d 45 3, 45 7 (7 th C ir. 20 07 ). In e v a l u at in g p ro b ab le cau se , we l o o ko nl y t o the i nf o r m at i o n kno wn to the o ffi c e r a tth e t i me o fa r r e s t, an d w e v i e w th e c i r c u mst an c es of th e a rre st from t h e p e r s p ec tiv e o f a re as on ab le p er so n in t h e p os itio n of th e o ffice r. G o nz a lez , 57 8 F
. 3dN o. 10

- 2000 7
at 537. Thus, the j ury shoul d determ in e th e e xi ste nce o f probabl e ca use o nl y i f“there i s r oo m f ora differ ence of opinion co nc ernin g the f acts or th e reason able inferences to be dr aw n fro m them

. ” Id. (c i ti ng Sor nb e rge rv. C ity of Kno xville, 434 F.3d 100 6, 1013 -14 (7th C ir. 2006)). Sh e a h an lea rn ed th e fo llow in g in for m at ion in M ar ch2 00 5: ( 1) M uch a w as co nduc tinga n int erna l i nvest i gat i on into pol i ce m i sco nd uct; ( 2) M ucha dis cove r e d tha ts qu a d c a r s we r e fr e qu e nt l y p a rk e d o ut s i de th e G a i k s ’ h o me ; ( 3 ) a n o ffi c e r w a s di s c i p l i n e d f o r i mpr o per l y pa r k i n g o u t s i d e th e Gai k s’ ho m e; a nd ( 4) M ucha w as concerned that pol i ce o ffi cer s m ay have provi ded the Gaik s with an i nter nal pol i ce l i st that conta i ned the nam es, address es, and ph on e num ber s o f Oak Broo k pol i ce offi cer s. H owever, by A ugust 16, 20 06 ( th e date ofM uch a’ s ar r es t) , S he ah anha d di sc o ve r ed th e foll owing add i ti onali nfo rm ati on thro ugh the Gaik s’ ci vi l l aw sui t, newsp aper ar ticl es, and other m eans: ( 1) M uch a di d no t appr o ve o fCBG, the g r o up or gani zed pri m ar i l y b y F ra nces Gaik; ( 2) M ucha spi ed o n the G ai ks , i nfi l t r a t e d C BG mee t i ng s , a nd c r e a t e d a f al se e- m ai l acc ount thro ugh w hi ch he c ontac ted Fr an c es Gaik; ( 3) M ucha ra n Googl e s ear ches on F ra nces Gai kf o r pur po se s unr el at ed to any po l i ce i nv es ti g at i o n; (4) al though M ucha had previ ousl y t est i fi ed und er oath that he di d not r un a c rim i nal bac kgr ound check o n F r a nc e s Ga i k, the I l l i no i s S t a t e Pol i ce r e c o r ds i ndi ca te d tha t M uch a di d i n f ac t r un the b ackg round c h ec k; (5) a t n o t i m e w a s Fra n c es G aik a w itn es s in any pol i ce invest i gat ion o r the focus ofany pol i ce investi gat i on ; and ( 6) wh en as ked f ora seco nd ti m e whether8 N o. 10

- 2000 he had r un a cr i m i nal h isto rychecko n Fr ances Gaik, M uch a r es po nde d “ I do n’ t r ec al l, ” a r es po ns e th atM uch a no w adm i ts was a l i e. Ev eni fwe as sum e t ha t M uch a secr etl y hel d a l egi ti m ate r eas on t o run the cr i m i nal b a c k g r o un d c heck

— as h e n ow as se rt s h e d id

— Shea han was no t ar m ed with kn o wl edg e o fM uch a’ s i nno ce nt m o ti ve at th e ti m e o f M uch a’ s ar r es t. Gi ve n ev ery th i ng that Shea han knew i n A ugu st 2 00 6, w e fi nd thathe ha d p ro b ab le c au se to arr es t M u c h a b ec au se a re as on ab le perso n coul d bel i ev e, und erthes e ci rcum sta nces, that th e r e wa s a s u b s t a n t i a l pr o b ab i l i t y th a tMu c h a h a d u n l a wfu lly re q u es te d a c rim in al b ac kg ro u n d ch ec k. T h is is tr u e e ve n if Sh e a h an w as m alic iou sly m ot iva te d ; an officer ’ s m oti vati ons ar e no t r el evan t to the prob abl e ca use d et er m in at ion
. See D even pec kv. A lfo rd, 54 3 U.S

. 14 6, 15 3 ( 2004 )

. W e a ffi rm the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s j ud gm ent.

B. Q u alif ied I m m u n ity M ucha al so ar gues that the defendants ca nnot s ucceed on the affi rm ati ve defe nse ofq ual i fi ed i m m unity b ecause , wh e n p r o c u r i n gM u c h a ’ s a r r e s tw a r r a n t, S h e a h a n kn o wi ng l y, i nt en ti ona ll y, o r wi tha r ec k l es s di sr eg ar d f o r the truth made f al se s ta te m en ts tha t wer e ne ce ss ary to the j udg e’ s pr o babl e c ause de te r m i na ti o n. W e nee d not r each th is iss u e, h ow ev er , bec au se th e e x i s t e n c e o f p ro b ab le ca us e pr o tects the de fen dan ts fr o m l i ab i l i ty, a nd the defe nd ants ther efore do notr equi re the add i ti onalpro te c tio n of qu alifie d im m u n ity
. S e eW hi t l ock v. Brown , 59 6 F. 3d 406, 41 0 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10) ( sta ti ng tha t pr obab le cause i s “ an abs ol ute defense to any c l ai m under Se cti on 1 983 aga i nst pol i ce o ffi cer s forwrongful ar re st” )N o. 10

- 2000 9 ( qu o t i ng M usta

fa v. Ci ty of

Chi cago , 44 2 F
. 3d 544, 54 7 ( 7th C ir. 20 06 )).

C . S t a t e L a w C l a i ms W e a ffi rm the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s d i sm i ssa l of M ucha’s st ate law cla im s b ec au se M u c h a h as n o v iab le f ed er al c laim and nei therparty c on tend s that we shoul d ret ai n j uri sdict i on o verst ate l aw i ssues .

I I I . C ONC L US I ON W e A FFIRM su m m ar y j udg m en t i n f av o r o fthe de fen dants.

2- 14- 11