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

For the Eig hth Circu it

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

No. 1 8- 14 02

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

W ad it h S to ck in ge r Nad er; Sta cey N ic ho le Nade r

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

ff s - Ap pe ll an ts

v.

Ci ty of Pap il li on ; Sa rp y

Co un ty, Neb ras ka ; Br y an Sv ajgl ; Be njam in Ive rs en ; Sc ot t A. Ly on s; L. Kenn et h P ol ik ov ; J en ni fer M ira ll es

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

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __
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 Ne br as ka - Om ah a

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Decem

be r 11 , 20 18
Fi le d: Marc h 8 , 20 19

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re LOKEN, MELLOY , and ERICKSON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

MELLOY, Circu it Ju dg e.Pl ai nt iff W ad it h Nad er ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t 1

ag ai ns t hi s 42 U.S.C. § 1 9 8 3 c l a i m fo r un la wfu l arre st in vi ol at io n of th e Fo ur th

Am en dm en t. Hav in g ju ris di ct io n u nd er 2 8 U.S.C. § 12 91 , we affi rm

.

I. Back gr ou nd

In Decem be r 20 14

, th e Nati on al C e n t e r f o r Mi ss in g an d Exp lo it ed Ch il dr en (“ NCMEC” ) rece iv ed two ti ps fro m Mi cro so ft reg ard in g se ve n im ag es o f c hi ld

po rn og rap hy th at ha d be en up lo ad ed to Mi cro so ft’s Sk y Driv e. The im ag es ha d be en

u pl oa de d by a Mi cro so ft cu st om er wit h th e em ai l ad dr es s wad it h@ ho tm ai l.co m.

NCMEC fo rward ed th e ti ps to th e Neb ras ka St at e Pat ro l, whi ch in tu rn fo rward ed th e

ti ps to th e Pap il li on , Neb ras ka P o l i c e D ep art m en t fo r fu rth er in ve st ig at io n. The

m at te r was as si gn ed to Dete ct iv e Bryan Sv a jg l

. Sv ajgl de te rm in ed th at th e im ag es

li ke ly co ns ti tu te d ch il d po rn og rap hy. He al so de te rm in ed th at th e em ai l acco un t fro m

whi ch th ey ha d be en up lo ad ed be lo ng ed t o Wa d i t h Nad er, who li ve d in Pap il li on , Sarp y Co un ty, Neb ras ka

. Sv ajgl th en ob ta in ed a warra nt to se arch Nad er’s res id en ce

fo r ev id en ce of su sp ect ed ch il d po rn og rap hy vi ol at io ns , in cl ud in g po ss es si on of ch il d

po rn og rap hy un de r Neb

. Rev

. St at

. § 28 -8 13 .01

. Nad er do es no t co nt es t th e va li di ty

of th e se arch warran t.

Sv ajgl co nd uc te d th e se arch al on g wit h a te am of d e t ect iv es on Mar ch 17

, 20 15

. The te am in cl ud ed Dete ct iv e Ben jam in Iv ers en , an of

fic er sk il le d in an al y zi ng

an d rev ie win g co m

pu te r fil es

. W hi le in Nad er’s ho m e, Iv e r s e n u s ed a sp eci al

co m pu te r pr og ram to sc an co m pu te rs an d ot he r ha rd ware own ed by Nader for chi ld

po rn og rap hy. A s c a n o f on e of Nad er’s co m pu te rs rev eal ed a la rg e vo lu m e of

p o r n o g rap hi c im ag es

. It al so ret ur ne d twen ty-th ree ke y wor d hi ts , wh ic h are w o r d s

th at are de fin ed as rel at ed to ch il d po rn og rap hy, an d on e ha sh va lu e of in te res t, whi ch

The Hon or ab le Jo se ph F. Bat ai ll on , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e f o r t h e 1

Dis tri ct of Ne br as ka

.

-2

-in di cat ed th e po te nt ia l pr es en ce of an im ag e of ch il d po rn og rap hy on th e co m pu te r. 2

At Nad er’s ho m e, Iv ers en was un ab le to rev ie w t he im ag e as so ci at ed wit h th e ha sh

va lu e of in te res t to de te rm in e whe th er it act ua ll y co nt ai ne d ch il d po rn og ra p h y. He

di d, ho wev er, rep or t th e res ul ts to Sv ajg l

. S v a jg l t he n sp ok e wit h Nad er. Nad er

co nf irmed th at he ha d se arch ed fo r ad ul t po rn og rap hy b ut de ni ed sea rch in g fo r an y

ch il d po rn og rap hy. He al so co nf irmed th at he ha d up lo ad ed f i l e s to th e Mi cro so ft

Sk y Driv e an d m en ti on ed th at he m ig ht ha ve ac ci de nta lly upl oa de d ch ild por no gr ap hy.

The de te ct iv es sei zed th e co m pu te r an d s ev eral cel l p ho ne s fo r la te r rev ie w.

Bas ed on Nad er’s co n f

i r mat i o n th at he ha d up lo ad ed so m e im ag es to th e

Mi cro so ft Sk y Driv e an d th e fact th at se ve n im ag es of ch il d po rn og rap hy ha d be en

up lo ad ed to th e Mi cro so ft Sk y Driv e f r o m Nad er’s em ai l, Sv ajgl be li ev ed he ha d

pr ob ab le cau se to arre st Nad er. Befo re arre st in g Nad er, he cal le d Sarp y Co un ty
Dep ut y Att or ne y Je nn ife r M i r a l le s (n ow Je nn ife r Hes si g) to co nf irm th at he ha d

pr ob ab le cau se

. Hes si g was “o n c a l l” th at da y to an swe r qu es ti on s fro m la w

en fo rcem en t of

fic ers th at aro se du rin g th e or di na ry co ur se of bu si ne ss . S he ag reed

th at Sv ajgl ha d pr ob ab le cau se to arre st Nad er. Sv ajgl th en arre st ed Nad er an d se rv ed

hi m w i t h a U n i fo rm Ci ta ti on an d Co m pl ai nt fo r po ss es si on of ch il d po rn og rap hy.

Fo ll owi ng th e arre st

, Sv ajgl fil ed an Affi da vi t in Su pp or t of a W arra nt le ss Arres t wit h

th e Co un ty Co ur t of Sarp y Co un ty. On Mar ch 18

, 20 15

, th e rev ie win g jud ge si gn ed

a Pro ba bl e Cau se Dete nt io n Ord er a u th or iz in g th e de te nt io n of Nad er. Ult im at el y ,

no ne of th e se ve n chi ld -p or no gr ap hy im ag es fla gg ed by Micro so ft we re d is co ve red

am on g th e de vi ces se iz ed fro m Nad er’s ho us e. S e v e r a l ot he r im ag es of ch il d

po rn og rap hy were ev en tu al ly fo un d on on e of Nad er’s de vi ces , bu t he was no t

pr os ecu te d fo r po ss es si ng th os e im ag es be cau se pr os ecu to rs qu es ti on ed whe th er th ey

co ul d p ro ve th at Nade r “ kn owi ng ly pos se ss ed ” th em

.

A ha sh va lu e is es se nt ia ll y a di gi ta l fin ge r pr in t. Mi cro so ft an d ot he r 2

te ch no lo gy co m

pa ni es m ai nt ai n a da ta ba se of ha sh va lu es a s s o c ia te d wit h ch il d

po rn og rap hy. Thu s, a ha sh va lu e of in te res t in di cat es th e po te nt ia l pr es en ce of an im ag e o f ch il d p or no gr ap hy.

-3

-In May 20 15

, Nad er fil ed a la wsu it as se rti ng va rio us f ed eral an d st at e la w

cl ai m s ag ai ns t Sv ajgl

, Iv ers en , Hes si g, S c o tt Ly on s, (th e Ch ie f of Po li ce of th e Pap il li on Po li ce Dep art m en t), L. Ken ne th Po li ko v (th e Sarp y Co un ty Att or ne y ), th e

Ci ty of Pap il li on , an d Sarp y Co un ty. All of th e in di vi du al Defen da nt s were su ed in

t h e ir in di vi du al cap aci ti es

. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d Defen da nt s’ m ot io n s f o r

su m m ary jud gm en t on al l cl ai m s. Nad er ap pe al s on ly th e di s t r i ct co ur t’s gr an t of

su m m ary jud gm en t on hi s 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 cl ai m fo r un la wfu l arre st in vi ol at io n of

th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t. On th at cl ai m , th e di st ric t co ur t fo un d: (1 ) Sv ajgl an d Iv ers en

were en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y ; (2 ) Hes si g was en ti tl ed to ei th er a b s o lu te

im m un it y or qu al ifi ed im m

un it y ; (3 ) Ly on s an d Po l i k ov were en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed

im m un it y ; an d (4 ) Sarp y Co un ty an d th e Ci ty of Pap il li on co u l d n o t b e s u bjec t to

m un ic ip al li ab il it y

.

II. St an da rd of R ev ie w

W e rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t bas ed on qu al ifi ed

im m un it y de no vo , “ vi ewin g th e ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to [Nad er] an d

dr awin g al l reas on ab le in fere nc es in [h is ] fav or .” Mal on e v. Hin m an , 84 7 F.3 d 94 9,

95 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ) (s eco nd al te rat io n in or ig in al ) (ci ta ti on om it te d )

. Su m m ary jud gm en t is ap pr op ria te if “ th ere is no ge nu in e di sp ut e as to an y m at eri al fact an d th e

m ov an t is en ti tl ed to jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w.” Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 56 (a). “ An of fic ia l

is e n t i t l e d to qu al ifi ed im m un it y un le ss (1 ) th e ev id en ce, vi ewed in th e li gh t m os t

fav or ab le to th e pl ai nt iff

, es ta bl is he s a vi ol at io n of a co ns ti tu ti on al or st at ut or y rig ht

,

an d (2 ) th e rig ht was cl earl y es ta bl is he d at th e ti m e of t h e v i o l at io n.” Mal on e, 84 7

F.3 d a t 9 52

.

III. Di sc us si on

“A warra nt le ss arre st is co ns is te nt wit h th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t i f i t i s

su pp or te d by pr ob ab le cau se , an d an of fic er is en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y if th ere

-4

-is at le as t ‘argu ab le pr ob ab le cau se .’ ” Bo rg m an v. Ked le y , 64 6 F.3 d 51 8, 52 2– 23 (8 th

Ci r. 20 11 ) (q uo ti ng W al ke r v. Ci ty of Pi ne Bl uf f, 41 4 F.3 d 98 9, 99 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 )).

A de te ct iv e ha s pr ob ab le cau se to arre st “ whe n th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces at th e

ti m e of th e arre st ‘a r e s u f f ic ie nt to le ad a reas on ab le pe rs on to be li ev e th at th e

de fen da nt ha s co m

m it te d or is co m

m it ti ng an of

fen se .’ ” Id

. at 52 3 (q uo ti ng Fi sh er

v. W al –M art St or es , In c., 61 9 F.3 d 81 1, 81 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) ). “ Arg ua bl e pr ob ab le

cau se ex is ts ev en whe [n ] an of fic er m is ta ke nl y arre st s a su sp ect be li ev in g [th e arre st ]

is ba se d in pr ob ab le cau se if th e m is ta ke is ob jecti ve ly reas on ab le .” Hos ea v. Ci ty of

St

. Pau l, 86 7 F.3 d 94 9, 95 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ) (al te rat io n in or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng Ehl ers v.

Ci ty of Rap id Cit y , 84 6 F .3d 10 02 , 1 00 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 )). W he th er p ro ba bl e cau se

ex is ts is a qu es ti on of la w to b e “d e t e r mi n ed at th e m om en t th e arre st is m ad e, an d
‘any la te r de ve lo pe d fact s are irr el ev an t to th e

. . . an al y si s.’” Id . ( qu ot in g Gil m or e

v

. C i t y o f M i nn eap ol is

, 83 7 F.3 d 82 7, 83 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 )). A de te ct iv e “ ne ed no t

co nd uc t a ‘m in i-t ria l’ be fo re effect ua ti ng an arre st ” an d “ whe n as se ss in g whe th er a

su sp ect po ss es se d th e st at e of m in d req ui red fo r th e cri m e

. . . he ne ed no t rel y on an

ex pl an at io n gi ve n by th e su sp ect .” Bo rg m an , 64 6 F.3 d at 52 3– 24 (ci ta ti on s om it te d)

. Howev er, a de te ct iv e “ can no t av oi d ‘m in im al fu rth er in ve st ig at io n’ if it wou ld ha ve

ex on erat ed th e su sp ect .” Id

. at 52 3 (q uo ti ng Kue hl v. Bu rti s, 17 3 F.3 d 64 6, 65 0 (8 th

Ci r. 19 99 )).

Sv ajgl ha d pro ba bl e cau se to arre st Nad er. The to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces

at th e ti m e of th e arre st

, as de sc rib ed ab ov e, were su ffi ci en t fo r Sv ajgl to be li ev e th at

N ad er ha d co m

m it te d or was co m

m it ti ng th e of

fen se of po ss es si ng ch il d por nogr ap hy

. Nad er arg ue s th at m in im al fu rth er in ve st ig at io n of th e ha sh va lu e of in te res t wou ld

ha ve rev eal ed th at th e im ag e it was as so ci at ed wit h was no t ch il d po rn og rap hy. Bu t,

ev en as su m in g Sv ajgl ha d di sc ov ered th at fact

, pr ob ab le cau se wou ld ha ve st il l

ex is te d. Sev en im ag es of ch il d po rn og rap hy ha d be en up lo ad ed fro m Nad er’s em ai l

t o M i cro so ft’s Sk y Driv e, Nad er hi m se lf ack no wled ge d th at he m ay ha ve up lo ad e d

ch il d po rn og rap hy ac ci de nt al ly (an ex cu se Sv ajgl was no t req ui red to be li ev e), an d

th e twen ty-th ree ke y wor d hi ts st i ll in di cat ed th e po te nt ia l pr es en ce of ch il d

-5

-po rn og rap hy on Nad er’s co m pu te r. In su m , Sv ajgl an d Iv ers en , to th e ex te nt Iv ers en

was ev en in vo lv ed , a re en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y be cau se th ei r ar res t of Nad er

di d no t vi ol at e th e Fo ur t h A men dm en t. Fo r th at sa m e reas on , th e rem ai ni ng

in di vi du al de fen da nt s ar e al so en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y

.

Fu rth er, Sarp y Co un ty an d th e Ci ty of Pap il li on can no t be su bjec t to m un ic ip al

li ab il it y

. “ To e s t a b l i s h m un ic ip al li ab il it y un de r § 19 83 , a pl ai nt iff m us t sh ow th at

a co ns ti tu ti on al v i o l at io n was co m m it te d pu rs ua nt to an of

fic ia l cu st om , po li cy , or

pr act ic e of th e go ve rn m en ta l en ti ty.” Mo y le v. And ers on , 57 1 F.3 d 81 4, 81 7 (8 th Ci r.

20 09 ). As we he ld in W eb b v. Ci ty of M a pl ewo od

, ho wev er, “ ‘the re m us t be an

un co ns ti tu ti on al a c t by a m un ic ip al em

pl oyee’ be fo re a m

un ic ip al it y can be he ld

li ab le .” 88 9 F.3 d 48 3, 48 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 18 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. Thu s, be cau se we fin d

th at no m un ic ip al em

pl oyee co m

m it te d an u n c o n st it ut io na l act

, m un ic ip al li ab il it y

can no t at ta ch to Sarp y

Co un ty and th e Ci ty of Pap il li on

.

IV. Co nc lu si on

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we af fir m th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t.

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

-6

-