## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 0- 36 00

__ __ __ __ __ _ Terry J. Harr in gt on ; Cu rti s W. * McGh ee, J r., *

* App el le es , *

* App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s

v. * Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn

* Dis tri ct of I owa

. * The Cit y of C ou nc il Blu ffs , Iowa ; *
Dan ie l C. Lars en ; Ly le Bro wn, *

* App el la nt s. *

*

__ __ __ __ __ _

Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 19 , 20 11 Fil ed : Ap ril 30 , 20 12

__ __ __ __ __ _

Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , COLLOTO N and GRUENDER, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ _ RILEY, Chi ef J ud ge

.

Terry J. Harri ng to n an d Cu rti s W . M cGh ee, Jr . ( co ll ect iv el y , a pp el le es ) su ed

va rio us de fen da nt s, in cl ud in g po li ce of fic ers Dan ie l C. Lars en an d Ly le W

. Bro wn (o ffi cers ), un de r 42 U.S.C. §§ 19 83 an d 19 85 an d st at e la w. The a pp el le es cla im ed

th e de fen da nt s vi ol at ed th e ap pe ll ees ’ rig ht s du rin g th e Io wa st at e in ve st ig at io n an d

pr os ecu ti on of th e ap pe ll ees fo r m ur de r. The of

fic ers m ov ed fo r su m

m ary jud gm en t,

as se rti ng th ey are en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y on th e ap pe ll ees ’ cl ai m s th at can bede feat ed if th e of fic ers ha d pr ob ab le cau se to arre st th e ap pe ll ees

. The of fic ers ap pe al

th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of th ei r m ot io n. W e rev ers e an d r e man d f o r fu rth er

pr oc eed in gs on th e ap pe ll ees ’ rem ai ni ng cla im s.

I. BACKGRO UND

A. Fac tua l Ba ck gr ou nd 1

In 19 78

, th e ap pe ll ees were co nv ic te d an d se nt e n c e d t o li fe im pr is on m en t
wit ho ut pa ro le fo r m

ur de rin g Jo hn Sch weer, a ret ire d po li ce of fic er who was wor ki ng

as a se c u r i t y g u a rd at a car de al ers hi p. In 20 02

, th e Io wa Su pr em e Co ur t va cat ed

Harri ng to n’s co nv ic ti on an d rem an de d th e cas e fo r a ne w tri al be cau se th e pr os ecu to r vi ol at ed Harri ng to n’s d ue pr oc es s rig ht s in fai li ng to di sc lo se ex cu lp at or y ev id en ce in co m pl ia nc e wit h Brad y v. Mar y la nd

, 37 3 U.S. 83 (1 96 3)

. The ne w pr os ecu to r de ci de d no t to ret ry Harri ng to n an d ag reed to va cat e McGh ee’s co nv ic ti on

. McGh ee pl ed gu il ty, pu rs ua nt to Nor th Caro li na v. Alfo rd

, 40 0 U.S. 25 (1 97 0)

, to se co nd

de gr ee m ur de r in ex ch an ge for a se nt en ce o f ti m e se rv ed

.

B. Pro cedu ra l H is to ry The ap pe ll ees su ed th e of fic ers , th e pr os ecu to rs , Po tt awat ta m ie Co un ty, Io wa (Co un ty), an d th e Ci ty of Co un ci l Bl uf fs

, Io wa u n d e r 4 2 U .S.C. §§ 19 83 an d 19 85

an d st at e la w. The ap pe ll ees ge ne ral ly co nt en d th e of fic ers in ve st ig at ed th em wit ho ut

pr ob ab le cau se to su sp ect th em of th e m ur de r, kn ew th e m ai n pr os ecu ti on wit ne ss ha d

li ed

, co erce d wit ne ss es in to lying in or de r to fram e th e ap pe ll ees fo r mu rd er,

co nc eal ed th i s f

a c t
, a n d hi d ex cu lp at or y ev id en ce. As rel ev an t to th is ap pe al

, th e

ap pe ll ees arg ue th es e act io ns vi o la te d § 19 83 by vi ol at in g th ei r (1 ) Fo ur th an d

Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t rig ht s ag ai ns t un reas on ab le se iz ur e; (2 ) Fi fth an d Fo ur te en th

Fo r m or e fact ua l de ta il s, se e ou r pr ev io us op in io n in McGh ee v. Po tt awat tam ie 1
Cn ty., Io wa, 54 7 F.3 d 92 2, 92 5- 28 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ), cert

. gr an te d, 12 9 S

. C t

. 2 0 02 (2 00 9)

, cert

. di sm is se d, 13 0 S. Ct

. 10 47 (2 01 0)

. The pa r t ie s res ol ve d th at cas e on ap pe al an d t he Su pr em e Co ur t d is m is se d wi th ou t en te rin g a de ci si on

.

-2

-Am en dm en t rig ht s no t to be de pr iv ed of th ei r li be rty wit ho ut du e pr oc es s of la w; an d

(3 ) Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t rig ht to eq ua l p r o t e c t i on of th e la ws by ta rg et in g th em be cau se th ey are Afri can -Am eri can

. Bo th ap pe ll ees a l s o a l l e g ed th e of fic ers an d

pr os ecu to rs co ns pi r e d t o de pr iv e th e ap pe ll ees of eq ua l pr ot ect io n of th e la ws, in

vi ol at io n of 42 U.S.C. § 19 85

. Harri ng to n fu rth er co nt en ds th e of fic ers vi ol at ed hi s Fi rs t an d F o u rte en th Am en dm en t rig ht s to free do m of as so ci at io n an d Si xt h an d

Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t rig ht s to a fai r tri al

. The ap pe ll ees ’ cas es were co ns ol id at ed

.

In 20 07

, th e di st ric t co urt foun d th e of fic ers were en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y

reg ard in g th ei r fai lu re to di sc lo se ex cu lp at or y ev id en ce be cau se an y fai lu re d i d no t
vi ol at e a rig ht th at was cl earl y es ta bl is he d whe n th e ap pe ll ees were pr os ecu te d. See
McGh ee v. Po tt awat ta m ie Cn ty., Io wa, 47 5 F. Su pp

. 2d 86 2, 91 1 (S.D. Io wa 20 07 ),

aff’d in pa rt, rev ’d in pa rt, 54 7 F.3 d 92 2 (ad dr es si ng on ly th e pr os ecu to rs ’ ap pe al

fro m th e di st ric t co ur t’s di sp os it io n of th ei r m ot io ns in th e sa m e or de r). The di st ric t

co ur t al so de te rm in ed a reas on ab le jury co ul d fin d t h e of fic ers (1 ) la ck ed pr ob ab le

cau se to arre st th e ap pe ll ees fo r m ur de r, an d (2 ) vi ol at ed th e ap pe ll ees ’ du e p ro ces s rig ht s by fab ric at in g ev id en ce. Id

. at 89 0, 91 0, 91 3. The of fic ers di d no t ap pe al th es e de te rm in at io ns . See g en eral ly McGhe e, 54 7 F .3d at 9 25 -2 6.

The ap pe ll ees se tt le d th ei r cl ai m s ag ai ns t th e Co un ty an d th e pr os ecu to rs

. The

di st ric t co ur t d is m is se d t he st at e-l aw cl ai m s as ti m e b arre d.

In May 201 0, t he of

fic ers m ov ed for

jud gm en t o n t he pl ead in gs , m ai nt ai ni ng

t h e f ed eral cl ai m s were un ti m el y be cau se th ey were ak in to th e to rt of fal s e im pr is on m en t. The di st ric t co ur t no te d whe th er accr ua l of th e § 19 83 cl ai m s is ba se d

on fal se im

pr is on m en t ru le s o r on m al ic io us pro se cu ti on ru le s de pe nd s u po n wh ic h

of th os e to rts m os t cl os el y res em bl es th e cl ai m s. See W al la ce v. Kato

, 54 9 U.S. 38 4,

38 8- 89 (2 00 7) (fal se im

pr is on m en t); Heck v. Hum ph rey, 51 2 U.S. 47 7, 48 4, 48 9- 90 (1 99 4) (m al ic io us pr os ecu tio n)

. T he dis tr ic t co ur t de te rm in ed

, if th e ap pe ll ees ’ cl ai m s

are m or e si m il ar to fal se im pr is on m en t, th e cl ai m s accr ue d whe n th e ap pe ll ees were

-3

-ch arg ed wit h m ur de r in 19 78 —an d th eref or e th e cl ai m s were br ou gh t well aft er t he

ap pl ic ab le two -y ear st at ut e of li m it at io ns ex pi red

. See W al la ce, 54 9 U.S. at 38 9 (“ [A]

fal se im pr is on m en t en ds on ce th e vi ctim be co m es he ld purs uant to [l eg al ] pr oc es s .”).

Howev er, t he di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e of fic ers ’ su m

m ary jud gm en t m ot io n, fin di ng th e ap pe ll ees ’ cl ai m s were m or e “ in th e na tu r e o f m al ic io us pr os ecu ti on ,” an d,

th eref or e, di d no t accr

ue un ti l th e ap pe ll ees ’ co nv ic ti on s were va cat ed

. Bec au se th e

ap pe ll ees su ed wit hi n two y ears of th ei r co nv ic ti on s be in g va cat ed

, th e di st ric t co ur t
de te rm in ed th e ap pe ll ees co m pl ie d wi th th e ap pl ic ab le st at ut e o f li m it at io ns

.

The of fic e r s a ga in m ov ed fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, arg ui ng th ey were en ti tl ed

to qu al ifi ed im m

un it y on th e cl ai m s th at co ul d be de feat ed by sh owi ng pr ob ab le cau se be cau se th ey ha d pr ob ab le cau se to be li ev e th e ap pe ll ees ha d st ol en cars

. The di st ric t

co ur t di sa gr eed

, de ci di ng th e of fic ers were no t en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y be cau se th ey di d no t ha ve pr ob ab le cau se to su sp ect th e ap p e l l e es of co m m it ti ng th e cri m e wit h wh ic h t he y

were ch arg ed

—Sc hwe er’s m

ur de r. The o ffi cers ti m el y ap pe al ed

.

II

. DISCUSS IO N

W e ha ve juri sd ic ti on ov er th is in te rlo cu to ry ap pe al un de r 28 U.S.C. § 12 91 an d

th e co ll at eral or de r d o c t r i n e

. S e e Ash cro ft v. Iq ba l, 55 6 U.S. 66 2,

__ _, 12 9 S. Ct

. 19 37

, 19 45 -4 6 (2 00 9)

. Our rev ie w of th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of su m m ary jud gm en t
is de no vo

. See Mor ris on Ent ers ., LLC v. Dravo Co rp ., 63 8 F.3 d 59 4, 60 2 (8t h Cir.

20 11 ). “ ‘Sum

m ary jud gm en t is ap pr op ria te [if ] th e reco rd

, vi ewed in th e li gh t m os t
fav or ab le to [th e ap pe ll ees ], de m on st rat es th at th ere i s n o ge nu in e is su e of m at eri al

fact an d [th e of

fic ers are] en ti tl ed to jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w.’ ” Id

. (q uo ti ng Myers

v. Lut se n Mt ns . C or

p., 58 7 F.3 d 89 1, 89 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 )). “ Qua li fie d im m un it y is

an affi rm at iv e de fen se fo r whi ch th e de fen da nt carr ie s th e bu rd en o f p r o o f

. The pl ai nt iff [s ], ho wev er, m

us t de m on st rat e th at th e la w is cl earl y es ta bl is he d.” Sp arr v.
W ard , 30 6 F .3d 58 9, 5 93 (8t h C ir. 2 00 2)

.

-4

-It is un cl ear wha t se iz ur e ap pe ll ees rel y up on fo r th ei r Fo ur th Am en d men t

cl ai m s. If ap pe ll ees as se rt th ei r arre st was th e rel ev an t se iz ur e, th en th ei r cl ai m is fo r fal se arre st

. Or if ap pe ll ees m ai nt ai n th e “ su m of po st -arr ai gn m en t de pr iv at io ns ” was th e rel ev an t se iz ur e, th ei r c l a i m i s f or m al ic io us pr os ecu ti on

. See Niev es v. McS ween ey , 24 1 F.3 d 46

, 54 (1 st Ci r. 20 01 ). O n ap pe al

, th e of fic ers arg ue th e di st ric t co ur t co nv ert ed th e ap pe ll ees ’ cl ai m s in to a m al ic io us p r os ecu ti on cl ai m

. 2

Su ffi ci en t pr ob ab le cau se wou ld de feat th e ap pe ll ees ’ § 1 9 8 3 cl ai m s ba se d on

m al ic io us pro se cu ti on an d wo ul d n ot affec t t he ap pe ll ees ’ rem ai ni ng cla im s. 3

If m al ic io us p r o s e c u t i on is a co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n at al l, it pr ob ab ly ari se s

un de r th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t. See Alb rig ht v. Ol iv er, 5 10 U.S. 26 6, 2 71 , 27 5 4

The Su pr em e Co ur t ha s us ed th e te rm s “ pr os ecu ti on wit ho ut pr ob ab le cau se ” 2

an d “ m al ic io us pr os ecu ti on ” refe rri ng to th e sa m e cl ai m

. See Alb rig ht v. Oli ve r, 51 0 U.S. 26 6, 27 1 & n.4 (1 99 4) (p lu ral it y op in io n)

. Al t h o u g h di ffer en ces be twee n

“ pr os ecu ti on wit ho ut pr ob ab le cau se ” an d “ m al ic io us pr os ecu ti on ” m ay ex ist, we wil l

us e th e p art ie s’ ter m in ol og y —m al ic io us pro se cu ti on

.
The di st ric t co ur t’s de te rm in at io ns t h a t a reas on ab le jury co ul d fin d th e 3
of fic ers la ck ed pr ob ab le cau se to arre st th e ap pe ll ees fo r m ur de r an d vi ol at ed th e ap pe ll ees ’ su bs ta nt iv e du e pr oc es s rig ht s by m an uf act ur in g ev id en ce ag ai ns t th em are th e un ap pe al ed la w o f th e c as e. See Uni te d St at es v. Bart sh , 6 9 F.3 d 86 4, 86 6 (8 th Ci r. 19 95 ) (“ The la w o f th e cas e do ct rin e pr ev en ts th e rel it ig at io n of a se tt le d is su e in a cas e an d req ui res co ur ts to ad he re to de ci si on s m ad e in earl ie r pr oc eed in gs in

or de r to en su re un ifo rm it y of de ci si on s, pr ot ect th e ex pe ct at io ns of th e pa rti es , an d

pr om ot e jud ic ia l eco no m

y .”). The refo re, th e of

fic ers ’ m ot io n fo r su m

m ary jud gm en t

can no t affe ct th e ap pe ll ees ’ fal se arre st an d su bs ta nt iv e du e pr oc es s cl ai m s. See id

. W e ex pr es s n o o pi ni on on th e ap pe ll ees ’ rem ai ni ng cla im s.

Tho ug h Alb rig ht m ay

lea ve op en th e p os si bi li ty of a pr oc ed ur al du e pr oc es s 4
cl ai m , th at cl ai m is no t av a i l a b l e h e re be cau se Io wa “ pr ov id es a to rt rem ed y fo r mali ci ou s pr os ecu ti on ; in de ed

, [Harri ng to n an d McGh ee] br ou gh t

. . . st at e- l a w

m al ic io us pr os ecu ti on cl ai m [s ], al be it aft er th e st at ut e of li m it at io ns ha d ex pi red

. (Tha t fact do es no t affect th e ad eq ua cy of th e rem ed y .[)]” Alb rig ht

, 51 0 U.S. at 28 5 (Ken ne dy, J., co nc ur rin g) ; se e Parr at t v. Tay lo r, 45 1 U.S. 52 7, 54 0- 41 (h ol di ng th at

-5

-(1 99 4 ) ( p l u r a li ty op in io n) ; se e al so id

. at 27 5- 76 (Sca li a, J., co nc ur rin g) ; id

. at 27 6

(Gin sb ur g, J., co nc ur rin g) ; id

. at 28 1 (Ken ne dy, J., co nc ur rin g) ; id

. at 28 6- 91 (So ut er, J., co nc ur rin g)

. The di sp os it iv e is su e on ap pe al is whe th er th e of fic ers are en ti tl ed to

qu al ifi ed im m

un it y on th e ap pe ll ees ’ Fo ur th Am en dm en t cl ai m s ba se d on m al ic io us

pr os ecu ti on

.

The of fic ers as se rt qu al ifi ed im m un it y on th os e cl ai m s req ui rin g th e ap pe ll ees

to sh ow th e of

fic ers act ed wit ho ut pr ob ab le cau se

. Offi ci al s be in g su ed un de r § 19 83

are en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y fo r act io ns th at di d no t vi ol at e a cl earl y es ta bl is he d

co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht at th e ti m e of th e al le ge d vi ol at io n su ch th at reas on ab le of fic ia ls

act in g in th e o ffi ci al s’ po si ti on wou ld no t h av e un de rs to od th ey were vi ol at in g th at

r i g h t. See Pear so n v. Cal la ha n, 55 5 U.S. 22 3, 23 6 (2 00 9) (h ol di ng a co u r t may

an al y ze th e two pr on gs of th e Sau ci er v. Katz

, 53 3 U.S. 19 4, 20 1- 02 (2 00 1)

, te st —(1 )

a co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht (2 ) th at is cle arl y est ab li sh ed

—i n a ny seq ue nc e); And ers on v. Crei gh to n, 4 83 U.S. 63 5, 6 39 (19 87 ).

The Su pr em e Co ur t in it s 1 99 4 Al br ig ht op in io ns de cl in ed to de ci de whe th er de fen da nt s ha ve a Fo ur th Am en dm en t rig ht ag ai ns t m al ic io us pr os ecu ti on , bu t no te d

th at m al ic io us pr os ecu ti on do es no t vi ol at e th e rig ht to su bs ta nt iv e d u e p r o c es s b e c au se “ pr et ria l de pr iv at io ns [a]re be tt er ad dr es se d un de r th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t

an d n ot su bs ta nt iv e d ue pro ces s.” M or an v. Cl ark e, 29 6 F .3d 63 8, 64 6- 47 (8 th Ci r.
20 02 ) ( e n ba nc ) (ci ti ng Alb rig ht

, 51 0 U.S. at 27 4- 75 (p lu ral it y op in io n) ); se e al so

a st at e po st -d ep riv at io n rem e d y s a ti sf ie s pr oc ed ur al du e pr oc es s whe n th e to rti ou s de pr iv at io n o f pr ot ect ed in te res ts res ul ts fro m “ a ran do m

an d u na ut ho riz ed act by a

st at e em pl oyee”), ov erru le d o n o th er g ro un ds by Dan ie l v. W il li am s, 47 4 U.S. 3 27

, 33 0- 31 (1 98 6) ; see als o W ha le n v. Co nn el ly, 62 1 N.W .2d 68 1, 68 7- 88 (Io wa 20 00 ) (s ta ti ng th e el em en ts of th e to rt of m al ic io us pr os ec u t i o n ) ; I owa Co de § 67 0.2 (tr an sf erre d fro m § 61 3A.2 in Co de 19 93 ) (wai vi ng m un ic ip al it ie s’ so ve rei gn im m un it y in to rt a c t i o n s ) ; Nels on v. St ei ne r, 26 2 N.W .2d 57 9, 58 2 (Io wa 19 78 ) (h ol di ng Io wa Co de § 61 3A.2 (n ow § 67 0.2 ) do es no t pr ev en t a to rt act io n ag ai ns t

m un ic ip al em

pl oyees)

.

-6

-Alb rig ht , 5 10 U.S. a t 28 3 (Ken ne dy, J ., con cu rri ng ). Mo ran di st in gu is he s Al br ig ht

a n d h o ld s th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t do es no t pr ecl ud e reco gn iz in g a su bs ta nt iv e du e

pr o c e s s vi ol at io n whe re la w en fo rcem en t of fic ers go be y on d m ere pr os ecu ti on wit ho ut pr ob ab le cau se an d fa b r i c a te ev id en ce in or de r to “ fal se ly fo rm ul at e a

pr et en se of pr ob ab le cau se .” Mo ran , 29 6 F.3 d at 64 7. Our si st er ci rcu it s ha ve ta ke n

a va rie ty of ap pr oa ch es on th e is su e of whe th er or whe n m al ic io us pr os ecu ti on vi ol at es th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t. See, e.g ., Ni e v e s , 2 4 1 F.3 d at 53 -5 4; Si ng er v.
Fu lt on Cn ty. Sh eri ff, 63 F.3 d 11 0, 11 6- 17 (2 d Ci r. 19 95 ); Lam be rt v. W il li am s, 22 3

F.3 d 2 5 7

, 2 6 1 ( 4 t h Ci r. 20 00 ); Cas te ll an o v. Frag oz o, 35 2 F.3 d 93 9, 94 5, 95 3 (5 th

C i r

. 20 03 ); Newso m e v. McC ab e, 25 6 F.3 d 74 7, 75 1 (7 th Ci r. 20 01 ); Pi erce v

. Gil ch ris t, 3 59 F.3d 12 79

, 12 90 -9 1 (10 th Ci r. 20 04 ); W oo d v . Kesl er, 3 23 F.3d 87 2,

88 1 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3) . W e n eed no t en te r th is de ba te no w. 5

Ass um in g a Fo ur th Am en dm en t rig ht ag ai ns t m al ic io us pr o se cu ti on ex is ts
,

su ch a rig ht was no t cl earl y es ta bl is he d whe n th e ap pe ll ees were pr os ecu te d in 19 77

an d 19 78

. In 19 94

, th e Su pr em e Co ur t de sc rib ed in Al b r i g h t th e “ ‘em ba rras si ng di ve rs it y of jud ic ia l op in io n’ [o n] th e ex te nt to whi ch a cl ai m of m al ic io us

pr os ecu ti on is act io na bl e un de r § 1 9 8 3

. ” A l b rig ht , 5 10 U.S. a t 27 0 & n.4 (q uo ti ng Alb rig ht v. Oli ve r, 97 5 F.2 d 34 3, 34 5 (7 th Ci r. 19 92 )). The y ear be fo re th e co nd uc t

un de rlyin g th e ap pe ll ees ’ su it oc cu rred

, ou r co ur t st at e d, “ whe th er a m al ic io us

pr os ecu ti on in fri ng es on pr ot ect ed co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s is un de ci de d.” Sart in v. Co m m ’r of Pu b. Safe ty of Mi nn ., 53 5 F.2 d 43 0, 43 3 (8 th Ci r. 19 76 )

. Giv en th is

pr eced en t, reas on ab le of

fic ers , i n th e o ffi cers ’ po si ti on he re, co ul d n ot ha ve kn own in 19 77 or 19 78 th at m al ic io u s p r o s e c ut io n vi ol at ed ap pe ll ees ’ Fo ur th Am en dm en t rig ht s.

W e al so do no t ad dr es s th e pa rti es ’ arg um en ts ab ou t whe th er pr ob ab le cau se

5

to su sp ect ap pe ll ees of car th eft was su ffi ci en t to de feat a cl ai m ba se d on pr os ecu ti on fo r m ur de r wit ho ut pro ba bl e cau se

.

-7

-II I. CONCLUSI ON

The of fic ers are en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y on an y Fo ur th A mend m en t

m al ic io us pr os ecu ti on or pr os ecu ti on wit ho ut pr ob ab le cau se cl ai m s. The di st ric t

co ur t erre d in de nyin g th e of fic ers ’ m ot io n fo r su m

m ary jud gm en t. W e rev ers e an d

rem an d fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs on th e ap pe ll ees ’ rem ai ni ng cla im s.

COLLOTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg e, di ss en ti ng

.

Thi s is an in te rlo cu to ry ap pe al fro m an or de r of th e di st ric t c o u rt de nyin g a

mo t i o n fo r su m

m ary jud gm en t ba se d on qu al ifi ed im m un it y

. The m ot io n rai se d a si ng le arg um en t— th at th e ex is te nc e of pr ob ab le cau se to arre st th e ap pe ll ees fo r car th eft req ui red th e di sm is sa l of al l “ c a u s e s o f a c ti on th at are ba se d up on a la ck of

pr o b a b l e c a u s e.” R. Doc

. 15 4, at 1. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n. The

m ajor i t y r e v e r s es th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on ba se d on a po in t of la w th at was no t
rai se d or de ci de d on th e m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, an te , at 7, an d th en de cl in es

to de ci de th e qu es ti on th at was rai se d an d de ci de d. Ant e , at 7 n.5

. I di sa gr ee wit h th is

pr oc ed ur e an d wou ld affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t’s or de r on th e na rro w is su e pr es en te d.

The rel ev an t pr oc ed ur al hi st or y can be st at ed br ie fly. In th ei r co m pl ai nt s, th e

ap pe ll ees al le ge d m

ul ti pl e cau se s of act io n. Each pl ai nt iff in cl ud ed a cl ai m un de r 42

U.S.C. § 19 83 ba se d o n t h e Fo ur th Am en dm en t. One pl ai nt iff al le ge d th at th e in ve st ig at io n an d pr os ecu ti on cau se d an “ u n r e a s o na bl e arre st an d in carc erat io n in

vi ol at io n o f th e Fo ur th an d Fou rte en th Am en dm en ts .” No. 4 :0 5- cv -0 02 55 , R. Doc. 1, at ¶ 31 8. The ot he r as se rte d a vi ol at io n of “ hi s rig ht s ag ai ns t un reas on ab le se iz ur es of hi s bo dy gu aran te ed hi m by th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t.” No. 4: 05 -cv -0 01 78

, R. Doc

. 1, at ¶ 32 1. 6

The co ur t th in ks it is un cl ear “ wha t se iz ur e ap pe ll ees rel y up on fo r th ei r Fo ur th 6
Am en dm en t cl ai m s,” an te , at 4- 5, bu t it sh ou ld be cl ear fro m th e co m pl ai nt s th at th ey

r e l y o n th e arre st fo r m ur de r (wit h le ga l pr oc es s) an d th ei r co nt in ue d de te n t i o n pe nd in g, du rin g, an d aft er tri al

. But cf

. W il so n v. Sp ai n , 20 9 F.3 d 71 3, 71 5- 16 & n.2

-8

-In 20 07

, th e ap pe ll an ts m ov ed fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w on th e pl ai nt iff s’
ci vi l rig ht s cl ai m s, in cl ud in g th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t cl ai m s. No. 4: 05 -cv -0 02 55

, R.

Doc

. 10 0; No. 4: 05 -cv -0 01 78

, R. Doc

. 90

. The di st ric t co ur t ru le d th at th e ap pe ll an ts

were no t en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y , McGh ee v. Pot ta wa tt ami e Cn ty

. , 47 5 F.

Su pp . 2 d 86 2, 91 0 (S.D. Io wa 20 07 ); R . Doc. 1 74 , a t 79 , a nd th e ap pe ll an ts di d no t

ap pe al

. In 20 10

, th e ap pe ll an ts m ov ed fo r jud gm en t on th e pl ead in gs on th e Fo ur th

Am en dm en t cl ai m s ba se d on th e st at ut e of li m it at io ns

. The y arg ue d th at if th e Fo ur th

Am en dm en t cl ai m s were in th e na tu re of m al ic io us pr os ecu ti on , su ch th at th ey were

no t ba rred by th e two -y ear st at ut e of li m it at io ns , se e W al la ce v. Ka to , 54 9 U.S. 38 4,

38 8- 39 2 (2 00 7)

, th en th e ap pe ll an ts were en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y be cau se th e

ap pe ll ees ’ al le ge d rig ht s were no t cl earl y es ta bl is he d. R. Doc

. 15 1- 2, at 6- 7. The

di st ric t co ur t reject ed th e arg um en t an d de ni ed th e m ot io n in an or de r da te d Octo be r 8, 2 01 0. R. Do c. 22 4, at 11 & n .5. The ap pe ll an ts di d n ot ap pe al th at ord er.

The on ly or de r fro m whi ch th e ap pe ll an ts ap pe al ed is th e di st ric t co ur t’s or de r of Octo be r 18

, 20 10

, de nyin g a m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud g men t

. R

. Doc

. 23 7; se e
Har ri ng to n v. W

il b e r , 74 3 F. Su pp

. 2d 10 06 (S.D. Io wa 20 10 ); R. Doc

. 22 5. Tha t

m ot io n rel ie d on ly o n th e al le ge d ex is te nc e of pr ob a b l e c a u s e t o arre st fo r car th eft

as a reas on to di sm is s ap pe ll ees ’ Fo ur th Am en dm en t cl ai m s. R. Doc

. 15 4- 3, at 5- 9. 7

(8 th Ci r. 20 00 ) (d is cu ss in g whe n th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t mi g h t ap pl y “ [b ]etween

arre st an d se nt en ci ng ”); To rr es v. McLa ug hl in
, 16 3 F.3 d 16 9, 17 4- 75 (3 d Ci r. 19 98 ) (h ol di ng th at “ po st -co nv ic ti on in carc erat io n can no t be a se iz ur e wit hi n th e m ean in g of th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t” ). The co ur t’s refe ren ce to th e po ss ib il it y of a se iz ur e

ar i s i n g fro m th e “ su m of po st -arr ai gn m en t de pr iv at io ns ,” an te , at 5, is in ap po si te
, be cau se th e ap pe ll ees were ne ve r rel eas ed be twee n th ei r arre st an d tri al

. Cf

. Alb ri gh t v. Oli ver , 51 0 U.S. 2 66 , 27 8- 79 (19 94 ) (Gin sb ur g, J., co nc ur rin g) ; Jef fe rs on v. Cit

y of Omah a Pol ic e Dep ’t

, 33 5 F.3 d 80 4, 80 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ); Tech ni ca l Ord na nc e, In c., v. Uni te d S ta te s , 24 4 F .3d 64 1, 6 51 (8t h C ir. 2 00 1)

.
The m ot io n di d no t sp eci fy

, by refe ren ce to th e ap pe ll ees ’ co m pl ai nt s, whi ch 7

pa rti cu la r cau se s of act io n th e m ot io n so ug ht to de feat

. On ap pe al

, th e ap pe ll an ts
ap pe ar t o fo cu s o n t he Fo ur th Am en dm en t cl ai m s p le ad ed by the ap pe ll ees

.

-9

-W he n th e ap pe l l e es m ov ed to di sm is s th is ap pe al ba se d on th e la w of th e cas e, th e

ap pe ll an ts res po nd ed th at “ th ey ha ve ne ve r be fo re as se rte d th at th ey ha d pr ob ab le

ca us e to su sp ect Pla in ti

ff s of ca r th ef

t an d, th us , ar e en ti tl ed to qu al if ie d immu ni ty on Pl ai nt iff s cl ai m s req ui rin g a pr ima fa ci e sh owi ng of a la ck of pr ob ab le cau se .” Res p.

to Mo t. to Dis m is s, Dec. 3, 20 10

, at 8 (em ph as is ad de d)

. The na rro w sc op e of th is

ap pe al was t hu s s eem in gl y co nf irmed.

The co ur t ack no wled ge s th at th e m otion fo r su m m ary jud gm en t un de rlyin g th is

ap pe al so ug ht di sm is sa l of “ cl ai m s th at co ul d be de feat ed by sh owi ng pr ob ab le cau se be cau se th ey ha d pr ob ab le cau se to be li ev e th e ap pe ll ees ha d st ol en cars .” Ant e , a t
4. The co ur t th en swi tc he s ge ars , ho wev er, an d ad dr es se s an en ti rel y di ffer en t is su e

on ap pe al —wh et he r “ a Fo ur th Am en dm en t rig ht ag ai ns t m al ic io us pr os ecu ti on ” was cl earl y es ta bl is he d in 19 77 an d 19 78

. I se e no so un d jus ti fic at io n fo r ex pa nd in g th e

sc op e of th is ap pe al to co ns id er ot he r qu al ifi ed -imm un it y is su es th at th e ap pe ll an ts
de cl in ed to rai se on ap pe al ei th er in 20 07 or i n re sp on se to th e d is tri ct co ur t’s ord er of Octo be r 8, 20 10

. The ap pe ll an ts can rai se th os e m at te rs at tri al an d on ap pe al aft er ju d g men t
, se e Ort iz v. Jo rd an , 13 1 S. Ct

. 88 4, 88 9 (2 01 1)

, bu t th ey can no t us e a n

or de r on a di ffer en t qu al ifi ed -imm un it y m ot io n to rev iv e a po te nt ia l ap pe al th at was

no t t ak en in th e p ro pe r co ur se

.

Thi s is no t to sa y th at I wou ld di sa gr ee wit h th e co ur t on th e m eri ts of th e le ga l

is su e th at it de ci de s, fo r th e co ur t’s co nc lu si on dr aws su pp or t fro m Alb ri gh t , 51 0 U.S.

at 27 0 n.4

, an d Sa rt in v. Co mmis si on er of Pub li c Sa fe ty , 53 5 F.2 d 43 0, 43 3 (8 th Ci r.
19 76 ), as well as de ci si on s of ot he r ci rcu it s in th e wak e of Alb ri gh t

. Se e Rod

ri gu ez

Mat eo v. Fue nt es -Ago st in i
, 66 F. App ’x 21 2, 21 3- 14 (1 st Ci r. 20 03 ); Osb or ne v. Ros e , 13 3 F.3 d 91 6, 19 98 W L 17 04 4, at *4 -5 (4 th Ci r. 19 98 ) (u np ub li sh ed ta bl e de ci si on ).

The co ur t do es m is ta ke nl y ch arac te riz e on e as pe ct of th e a p p e ll ees ’ Fo ur th

Am en dm en t cl ai m s as a “ fal se arre st ” cl ai m

. Ant e , at 5 & n.3

. Bec au se th e ap pe ll ees

were arre st ed wit h l e g al pr oc es s, th ei r Fo ur th Am en dm en t cl ai m s are an al og ou s to
cl ai m s of m al ic io us pr os ecu ti on , no t fal se arre st

. W al la ce , 54 9 U.S. at 38 9- 90 ; Heck

-1 0-v. Hump hr ey , 51 2 U.S. 4 77 , 48 4 (1 99 4) ; W il ki ns v. DeReyes , 5 28 F.3 d 79 0, 79 8- 99 (1 0t h Ci r. 20 08 ); Ni eve s v

. McS wee ne y , 24 1 F.3 d 46

, 54 (1 st Ci r. 20 01 ); Si ng er v. Ful to n C nt y. Sh er if f , 63 F.3 d 11 0, 11 7 (2 d Ci r. 19 95 ). W e kn ow th at on e as pe ct of

a Fo ur th Am en dm en t m al ic io us pr os ecu ti on cl ai m —i .e., a c la im al le gi ng th at an of f ic er cau se d an un co ns ti tu ti on al arre st wit h warra nt by pr es en ti ng a jud ge wit h a

co m pl ai nt an d su pp or ti ng affi da vi t th at ob vi ou sl y fai le d to es ta bl is h pr ob ab le

cau se —was cl earl y es ta bl is he d a s o f 19 86

, se e Ma ll ey v. Brig gs , 47 5 U.S. 33 5, 34 1 (1 98 6)

, bu t whe th er su ch a rig ht was cl earl y es ta bl is he d i n 19 77 is de ba ta bl e.
Co mpa re Sa rt in
, 53 5 F.2 d at 43 3, an d Smi th v. Gon za le s , 67 0 F.2 d 52 2, 52 6 (5 th Ci r.
19 82 ), wi th Jo ne s v. Perr ig an , 45 9 F.2 d 81

, 82 -8 3 ( 6 t h C i r

. 1 97 2)

. Alt ho ug h th e

co ur t’s co nc lu si on de cl ares br oa dl y th at “ th e of fic ers are e n ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed

im m un it y on an y Fo ur th Am en dm en t m al ic io us pr os ecu ti on or pr os ecu ti on wit ho ut

pr ob ab le cau se cl ai m s,” an te , at 8 (em ph as is ad de d)

, it ap pe ars th at th e Mal le y -type
cl ai m rem ai ns in th e cas e, se e 47 5 F. Su pp

. 2d at 91 0, an d th at a qu al ifi ed -imm un it y de fen se m ay

be ren ewed by the ap pe ll an ts at t ria l. Ant e , at 5 n.3 , 7 n .5.

As fo r th e is su e act ua ll y rai se d an d de ci de d in th e di st ric t co ur t, I wou ld affi rm , bu t fo r reas on s di ffer en t th an th os e gi ve n by th e di st ric t co ur t. The re are po te nt ia ll y

co nf li ct in g si gn al s i n t he cas e la w abo ut whe th er the ex is te nc e of pr ob ab le cau se to

a r r e s t th e ap pe ll ees fo r car th eft wou ld de feat so m e or al l of ap pe ll ees ’ Fo ur t h

Am en dm en t cl ai m s. Co mpa re Jo hn so n v. Kn or r , 47 7 F.3 d 75

, 83 -8 4 (3 d Ci r. 20 07 ),

an d Pos r v. Doh er ty , 94 4 F.2 d 91

, 10 0 (2 d Ci r. 19 91 ), wi th Bro ok s v. Ci ty of

Aur or a , 65 3 F.3 d 4 7 8

, 4 8 5 ( 7 t h Ci r. 20 11 ). I wou ld no t reac h th at is su e, be cau se th ere are

ge nu in e is su es of f

act ab ou t whet he r th e ap pe ll an ts ha d pro ba bl e cau se to arre st th e

ap pe ll ees fo r car th eft

. The reco rd in cl ud es po li ce rep or ts fro m 19 77 th at
, acco rd in g

to th e ap pe ll an ts
, es ta bl is he d th e req ui si te pr ob ab le cau se

. Bu t pr ob ab le cau se m us t
be ba se d on fact s th at are kn own to th e arre st in g of fic er, Deven

pe ck v. Alf

or d

, 54 3

U.S. 14 6

, 1 5 2 ( 2 0 04 ), or kn own co ll ect iv el y by in ve st ig at in g of fic ers who are in

“ so m e de gr ee of co m

m un ic at io n.” Uni te d St at es v. Fra sh er , 63 2 F.3 d 45 0, 45 3 (8 th

Ci r. 20 11 ). The reco rd on th i s mo t i o n in cl ud es no affi da vi ts fro m th e ap pe ll an t

-1 1-of

fic ers es ta bl is hi ng wha t th ey kn ew an d whe n th ey k n e w i t

— b ot h co nc ern in g

ev id en ce th at in cu lp at ed th e ap pe ll ees in a car th eft rin g an d ev id en ce th at de tra ct ed

fro m a sh owi ng of pr ob ab le cau se —o r es ta bl is hi ng th e de gr ee of co m m un ic at io n be twee n th e ap pe ll an ts an d ot he r of fic ers w h o au th or ed rep or ts th at ap pe ar in th e

reco rd

. Bec au se th es e fact s m us t be de te rm i n e d b e f

o r e th e le ga l is su es can be

res ol ve d, I wo ul d a ffi rm

th e d is tri ct co ur t’s o rd er o n t he na rro w is su e p res en te d.

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

-1 2-