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

For the Eig hth Circu it

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

No. 1 2- 40 38

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

Mo nt y Fag na n

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

ff - App el la nt

v.

Ci ty of Lin o Lak es , Min ne so ta ; Ti m ot hy Noll , Lin o Lak es Po li ce Offi cer, i n h is

in di vi du al cap aci ty; Ch ris to ph er Br ag el an , Lin o Lak es Po li ce Se rg ean t, i n h is

in di vi du al cap aci ty; Mi tc he ll Dem ars , Lin o Lak es Po li ce In ve st ig at or , in hi s in di vi du al cap aci ty; W il li am Ham m es , Lin o Lak es Po li ce Offi cer, i n h is in di vi du al

cap aci ty; Tanya Tam

m , Lin o Lak es Po li ce Offi cer, i n h er i nd iv id ua l ca pa ci ty;
Ada m Halv ers on , Lin o Lak es Po li ce Offi cer, i n h is in di vi du al cap aci ty; W ay ne W eg en er, Lin o Lak es Po li ce Offi cer, i n h is in di vi du al cap aci ty; Jo el Mart in , Lin o

Lak es Po li ce Offi cer, i n h is in di vi du al cap aci ty

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 M in ne so ta - Mi nn eap ol is

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Octo be r 24 , 20 13
Fil ed : M arch 10 , 20 14

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , COLLOTO N and KELLY , Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

KELLY, Cir cu it Ju dg e.Afte r he was acq ui tt ed of st at e la w cha rg es rel at ed to po ss es si on of f ire arm s,

Mo nt y Fag na n (Fag na n) br ou gh t su it un de r 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 ag ai ns t th e Ci ty of Lin o

Lak es an d ei gh t Lin o Lak es po li ce of fic ers in th ei r in di vi du al cap aci ti es

. The di st ric t

co ur t gr an te d de fen da nt s’ m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t on al l cl ai m s, an d Fag na n 1

no w ap pe al s th e jud gm en t on ly as to hi s Fo ur th Am en dm en t cl ai m ag ai ns t th e po li ce

of fic ers in th ei r in di vi du al cap aci ti es

. W it h juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. § 12 91

, we

affi rm

.

I. Ba ck gr ou nd

On Feb ru ary 25

, 20 07

, San dr a Fag na n, Mo nt y Fag na n’s m ot he r, cal le d 91 1 to

rep or t a po ss ib le ga s le ak at he r ho me i n Li n o La ke s, Mi nn es ot a. Sh e an d he r

hu sb a n d G a ry be li ev ed th at th e ba se m en t la un dr y ro om was th e so ur ce of th e le ak

. Mo nt y Fag na n, who was li vi ng wit h t h e m a t th e ti m e, acco m pa ni ed th e fir st

res po nd ers to th e ba se m en t. Wh i l e th e fir efi gh te rs se arch ed fo r th e le ak in th e

la un dr y ro om , th e po li ce of f i c e r s o n th e sc en e—S erg ean t Brag el an an d Offi cer 2

Nol l— st ay ed in th e ba se m en t li vi ng ro om , th ro ug h whi ch th e fir efi gh te rs ha d pa ss ed

on th e way to th e la un dr y ro om

. Serg ean t Brag el an te st ifi ed th at “ [i]t was so m ewh at

di m bu t th ere was st il l pl en ty of li gh t to se e wha t y ou were do in g” in th e li vi ng ro om

. St at e Co ur t Tria l Tr. at 36 0; App el le es ’ App en di x (Ap p.) at 38 8. The of fic ers be ga n

to co nv ers e wit h Fag na n ab ou t hi s ex te ns iv e gu n co ll ect io n, whi ch was di sp la y ed in

up rig ht gl as s cas es al on g th e li vi ng ro om wall ne xt to th e la un dr y ro om do or

. At on e

po in t, Offi cer Nol l co m

m en te d th at th e ba rrel s of two of th e gu ns lo ok ed sh or te r th an

ei gh te en in ch es , t he m in im um pe rm is si bl e le ng th un de r Mi nn es ot a la w. Se e Mi nn

. St at

. Ann

. § 60 9.6 7. Serg ean t Brag el an te st ifi ed th at th e gu ns in qu es ti on were st or ed

The Hon or ab le Dav id S. Dot y , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct of 1

Mi nn es ot a.

As di d th e di st ric t co ur t, we sp el l Se r g e a n t Brag el an ’s na m e th us fo r 2

co ns is te nc y

wit h t he cap ti on , th ou gh th e warra nt affi da vi t s pe ll s i t “ Brag el m an .”

-2

-in th e cas es ad jacen t to th e la un dr y ro om , “ on th e s i d e c l o se st to th at la un dr y ro om

do or .” St at e Co ur t Tria l Tr. at 30 2; App

. at 33 0. A f t e r o b se rv in g th e gu ns ’ le ng th

an d won de rin g i f th ey

ha d b een sawe d o ff, Ser ge an t Br ag el an us ed hi s fl as hl ig ht to

il lu m in at e m or e cl earl y th e en ds of th e b a r r e l s

. H e no ti ced th at th e gu n ba rrel s

ap pe ared jagg ed

, as if th ey ha d be en cu t. Fag na n st at ed th at th e gu ns were le ga l an d

ha d be en bo ug ht fro m a li cen se d d e a l e r. All em erg en cy pe rs on ne l, in cl ud in g th e

po li ce o ffi cers , lef

t af te r th e fi refi gh te rs fou nd no ga s l eak

.

Serg ean t Brag el an an d Offi cer Nol l su bs eq ue nt ly in ve st ig at ed th ei r su sp ic io ns

ab ou t two of Fag na n’s gu ns by co m pa rin g th ei r m em or ie s of th os e gu ns to th e le ng th s

of si m il ar gu ns in th e po li ce de pa rtment arm or y

. The y th en su bm it te d rep or ts of th ei r

co nc ern s ab ou t Fag na n’s gu ns to ci ty in ve st ig at or s, in cl ud in g de fen da nt M i t c h e ll

Dem ars , who pr ep ared a de ta il ed ap pl ic at io n fo r a warra nt to se arch Mo nt y Fag na n’s

ho m e. An Assi st an t Ano ka Co un ty Att or ne y rev ie wed th e warra nt ap pl ic at io n, and

Ano ka Co un ty Ju dg e Jo hn Hof fm an au th or iz ed th e se arch warra nt

. In ex ecu ti ng th e

w arra nt

, ci ty po li ce of

fic ers se iz ed two sh ot gu ns (wh os e ba rrel s were m e a s u r e d b y

th ree di ffer en t of

fic ers at a le ng th of 15 .5 in ch es ), a ha ck sa w, an d a rif le

. Fag na n was

arre st ed an d ch arg ed wit h two co un ts of fel on y po ss es si on of a s h o r t

- b a rrel ed

sh ot gu n. Afte r hi s arre s t

, A n ok a Co un ty Ju dg e Dan ie l Kam m ey er is su ed a se arch

warra nt fo r an ai rp or t ha ng ar reg is te red to Fag na n, bu t no co nt rab an d was fo un d

th ere.

The Mi nn es ot a co ur t co nd uc te d om ni bu s h e a rin gs on ev id en ti ary is su es an d

de cl in ed to su pp res s ev id en ce fro m th e se arch

. Afte r Fag na n pl ed no t gu il ty an d was

acq ui tt ed aft er tri al on bo th co un ts

, he br ou gh t se ve ral cl ai m s at th e di st ric t co ur t

un de r § 19 83

. The on ly is su es on ap pe al are whe th er th e se arch of hi s h o us e an d

se iz ur e of hi s gu ns vi ol at ed th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t an d whe th er th e o f f i cers ha d

-3

-pr ob ab le cau se to arre st Fag na n. The de fen da nt s as se rt th ey are en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed 3

im m un it y be cau se Fag na n’s co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s wer e n ot vi ol at ed

.

II . Dis cus si on

W he n th e di st ric t co ur t ha s gr an te d a su m m ary jud gm en t m ot io n, we rev ie w th e

co ur t’s le ga l co nc lu si on s de no vo an d it s fact fin di ng s fo r cl ear erro r, co ns id eri ng th e

ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e no nm ov in g pa rty. M o r r i s v

. Ci ty of

Ch il li co th e, 51 2 F.3 d 10 13 , 1 01 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ). The ex i s t en ce of pr ob ab le cau se

is a m ix e d q ue st io n of la w an d fact

, whi ch we rev ie w de no vo

. Uni te d St at es v.

Bro wn, 46 1 F.3 d 10 62

, 10 72 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ). Gran ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t is pr op er

“ if th e m ov an t sh ows th at 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). W he n th e

de fen se of qu al ifi ed im m

un it y ha s be en as se rte d, we ev al ua te (1 ) whe th er de fen da nt s

vi ol at ed pl a i n t i f

f’s co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s an d (2 ) whe th er th os e rig ht s were cl earl y

es ta bl is he d. Ch am

be rs v. Pen nycoo k, 64 1 F.3 d 89 8, 90 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). If we fin d

th at no co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n oc cu rred

, ho wev er, ou r ev al ua ti on m ay en d th ere. See

Cru m le y v. Ci ty of St . Pau l, 3 24 F.3d 10 03 , 10 08 (8t h C ir. 2 00 3)

.

Fi rs t, Fa g n a n arg ue s th at th e Lin o Lak es po li ce of fic ers vi ol at ed hi s

co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s whe n th ey co nd uc te d an il le ga l se arch of hi s ho m e. The Fag na ns

co ns en te d to th e Lin o Lak es of fic ers ’ en try in to th ei r h o me, a n d Mo nt y Fag na n

pe rs on al ly es co rte d th e of fic ers to t h e b as em en t. Nev ert he le ss , F ag na n as se rts th at
Serg ean t Brag el an an d Offi cer Nol l ex ceed ed th e sc op e of th at co ns en t whe n th ey

st oo d ne ar the la un dr y ro om , ta lk in g with hi m ab ou t hi s gu n col le ct io n. In es se nc e,

Fag na n al so rai se s in pa s s i n g a Fi fth Am en dm en t cl ai m ba se d on hi s 3

co nv ers at io n wit h th e of

fic ers at hi s ho us e. Thi s clai m was no t rais ed in th e di st ric t

co ur t, an d we wil l no t ad dr es s it no w. See St on e v. Harry, 36 4 F.3 d 91 2, 91 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ) (ci ti ng “ ou r ge ne ral ru le th at cl ai m s no t pr es en te d in th e di st ric t co ur t m ay no t
be ad va nc ed for

th e fi rs t t im e o n a pp eal ”).

-4

-Fag na n as se rts th e po li ce of fic ers were no t la wfu ll y in th e pl ace fro m whi ch th ey

vi ewed th e g un s.

The of fic ers di d no t ex ceed th e sc op e of Fag na n’s co ns en t fo r th em to be in th e

ba se m en t. “ The st an da rd fo r m eas ur in g th e sc op e of a [p ers on ’s] co ns en t un de r th e

Fo ur th Amen d men t is th at of ‘objec ti ve ’ reas on ab le ne ss —wh at wou ld th e typic al

reas on ab le pe rs on ha ve un d e r s t o o d by th e ex ch an ge be twee n th e of fic er an d th e

su sp ect ? ” Uni te d St at es v. McM ul li n, 57 6 F.3 d 81 0, 81 5 (8t h Ci r. 20 09 ) (q uo ta ti on

om it te d) . Here, th e of

fic ers ha d to walk th ou gh th e ba se m en t liv in g roo m to acce ss

th e la un dr y ro om

—t he su sp ect ed lo cat io n of th e ga s le ak ; th e of fic ers st ay ed ne ar th e

la un dr y ro om do or ; an d th e sa wed -o ff gu ns were lo cat ed in a g l a s s -wal le d cab in et

ad jacen t to th at do or

. A typic al

, reas on ab le pe rs on wou ld un de rs ta nd th e of fic ers ha d

pe rm is si on to rem ai n ne ar th e lo cat io n of th e pr ob le m th at br ou gh t th em to th e ho us e

in th e fir st pl ace. Thu s, th e of fic ers were la wfu ll y in th e ba se m en t whe n th ey sa w, in
pl ai n vi ew, th e gu ns th e y su sp ect ed were un la wfu ll y sh or t. See Uni te d St at es v.

Bu st os -Tor res , 39 6 F .3d 93 5, 94 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (The Fo ur th Am en dm en t p erm it s

“ an of fic er, wit ho ut a warra nt

, [to ] se iz e an ob ject in pl ai n vi ew pr ov id ed th e of fic er

is la wfu ll y in th e po si ti on fro m whi ch he or sh e vi ews th e ob ject, th e ob

ject’s

in cri m in at in g ch arac te r is im m ed ia te ly ap pa ren t, an d th e of fic er ha s a la wfu l rig ht to

acce ss th e o bjec t.”) (ci ti ng Mi nn es ot a v . Dick ers on , 50 8 U.S. 3 66 , 37 5 (1 99 3) ).

Seco nd

, Fag na n arg ue s th at th e warra nt in th is cas e was is su ed

, an d ex ecu te d,

wit ho ut pr ob ab le c a u s e

. The of fic ers no ti ced th at two gu ns in Fag na n’s cab in et

lo ok ed to o sh or t. The req ui rem en t th at th e gu ns ’ “ in cri m in at in g na tu re” be

“ im m ed ia te ly ap pa r e n t” do es no t m ean an of fic er m us t kn ow th e it em s are

co nt rab an d. Uni te d St at e s v

. G a r n e r, 90 7 F.2 d 60

, 62 (8 th Ci r. 19 90 ). Rat he r, th e

of fic er ne ed s on ly “ ‘pro ba bl e cau se to as so ci at e th e pr op ert y wit h cri m in al act iv it y .’ ”

Id

. (q uo ti ng Tex as v. Bro wn, 46 0 U.S. 73 0, 74 1– 42 (1 98 3) ). “ Pro ba bl e cau se

de m an ds

. . . on ly th at th e fact s av ai l ab le to a reas on ab ly cau ti ou s [p ers on ] wou ld

warra nt a be li ef ‘tha t cert ai n it em s m ay be co nt rab an d’

. . . .” Id

. Alt ho ug h th e

-5

-ba se m en t li gh ti ng was so m ewh at di m , Offi cer Nol l an d Serg ean t Brag el an bo th sa w

th e o d d l e ng th of th e gu ns ev en wit ho ut th e ai d of a fla sh li gh t. Mo reo ve r, Fag na n

ad m it s i n hi s ap pe ll at e br ie f th at he to ld th e o ffi cers “ th at th ere wer e two sawe d o ff

sh ot gu ns th at were u se d b y sp or ts [m en ] pr act ic in g fo r co m pe ti ti on .” App el la nt Br.

at 20

.

A warra nt ap pl ic at io n an d a f f i d av it de m on st rat e pr ob ab le cau se if th ey

“ de sc rib e ci rcu m st an ces sh owi ng a fai r pr ob ab il it y th at co nt rab an d or ev id en ce of a

cri m e wil l be fo un d in a pa rti cu la r pl ace.” Uni te d St at es v. Keel e, 58 9 F.3 d 94 0, 94 3
(8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. The affi da vi t in su pp or t of th e warra nt to se arch

th e Fag na n ho m e in cl ud ed se ve ral de ta il s fro m th e of fic ers ’ ob se rv at io ns : “ Offi cer

Nol l, who was st an di ng by, ob se rv ed two sh ot gu ns th at were co nt ai ne d in th es e gl as s

fro nt cab in et s [an d] ap pe ared to be of il le ga l ba rrel le ng th

. . . . Offi cer Nol l ob se rv ed

th e sh ot gu ns ha d s ta nd ard m ag azi ne tu be s t ha t h ol d fou r 2 3/ 4 or 3 in ch ro un ds an d

th at th e ba rrel s were cu t of f jus t ab ov e th e m ag azi ne tu be s.” App

. at 94 0. The

affi da vi t fu rth er st at ed th at Serg e a n t Brag el an an d Offi cer Nol l “ fro m m eas ur in g

de pa rtment sh ot gu n s de te rm in ed th at th e two th ey ob se rv ed at Fag na n’s res id en ce

were of ill eg al ba rrel le ng th .” Id. Fi na ll y , th e affi da vi t was spe ci fic as to wha t was

so ug ht : “ [s ]hor t ba rrel ed ‘sawed of f’ sh ot gu ns

. . . an d an y ot he r il le ga ll y m od ifi ed

or al te red fir earm s,” “ [m ]anu al s

. . . f or weap on m od ifi cat io n/ al te rat io n,” “ to ol s fo r

al te rin g fir earm s” an d “ it em s to sh ow co ns tru ct iv e po ss e s s i o n of th e ab ov e it em s.”

Id

. at 93 9. Su ch de ta il s ad eq ua te ly sh ow th at th e warra nt was su pp or te d by pr ob ab le

cau se

. 4

To th e ex te nt Fagn an ha s pr es erv ed hi s m al ic io us pr os ecu ti on cl ai m on ap pe al

,

4

ou r fin di ng th at th e po li ce ha d pr ob ab le cau se to co nd uc t t he sea rch de feat s i t. See
Harri ng to n v. Ci ty of Co un ci l Bl uf fs

, Io wa, 67 8 F.3 d 67 6, 67 9– 8 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (“ Su ffi ci en t pr ob ab le cau se wou ld de f e a t th e ap pe ll ees ’ § 19 83 cl ai m s ba se d on

m al ic io us pro se cu ti on

. . . .”).

-6

-To th e ex te nt t h a t F a g na n al so arg ue s th e warra nt affi da vi t was ba se d on

m is rep res en te d fact s, we ag ree wit h th e di st ric t co ur t th at th e reco rd do es no t refl ect

th e “ ‘del ib erat e fal se ho od ’ or ‘reckl e s s d i s reg ard fo r th e tru th ’ [th at ] vi ol at es th e

Fo ur th Am en dm en t.” Bag b y v

. B r on dh av er, 98 F.3 d 10 96

, 10 98 (8 th Ci r. 19 96 )
(q uo ti ng Fran ks v. Dela ware, 43 8 U.S. 15 4, 17 1 (1 97 8) ) (d es cri bi ng st an da rd fo r

im po si ng § 19 83 li ab il it y on po li ce of fic ers ). “ Trut hf

ul in th is co nt ex t m ean s th at th e

in fo rm at io n p ut for th is ‘ be li ev ed or a pp ro pr ia te ly accep te d b y th e aff ia nt as t ru e.’”

Mo rri s v. Lan ph er, 56 3 F.3 d 39 9, 40 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (q uo ti ng Fran ks

, 43 8 U.S

. a t

16 5)

. In res po ns e to a m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t on th e gr ou nd of qu al ifi ed

im m un it y , Fag na n “ m ay no t res po nd si m pl y wit h ge ne ral at ta ck s upon the de fe ndan t’s

cred ib il it y , bu t rat he r m

us t id en ti fy affi rm at iv e ev id en ce fro m whi ch a jury co ul d fin d

th at th e pl ai nt iff ha s carr ie d hi s

. . . b ur de n of pr ov in g th e pe rti ne nt m ot i v e

. ” Id . a t

40 3 (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. Si nc e Fag na n ha s m ad e no su ch de m on st rat io n, th e di st ric t

co ur t p ro pe rly gran te d s um m ary jud gm en t o n t hi s i ss ue as we ll

. 5

Fi na ll y , Fag na n arg ue s th at th e of fic ers la ck ed pr ob ab le cau se to arre st hi m on

th e st at e gu n ch arg es

. At th e ti m e, th e of fic ers ha d a warra nt to se arch th e ho us e bu t

no t to arre st hi m

. “ ‘Prob ab le cau se to co nd uc t a warra nt le ss arre st ex is ts whe n at th e

To th e ex te nt th at Fag na n pr es erv ed fo r ap pe al hi s ab us e of pr oc es s cl ai m , we 5

de cl in e to de ci de whe th er de fen da nt s m ay be li ab le fo r ab us e of pr oc es s pu rs ua nt to
42 U.S.C. § 19 83

. See San ti ag o v. Fen t o n , 8 9 1 F

. 2d 37 3, 38 8 (1 st Ci r. 19 89 ).

W he th er we m ay ev al ua te su ch a cl ai m pu rs ua nt to § 19 83 (as Fag na n all eg es in hi s

co m pl ai nt ) or un de r st at e l a w , h o w e v e r, he wou ld ne ed to sh ow th at th e of fic ers

su bjec ti ve ly h ad an “ ul te rio r pu rp os e.” See V o y t i c k y v. Vill. of Tim

berlake, 412 F.3d
669, 676–77 (6th Cir. 2005 ) (If an ab us e of pr oc es s cl ai m is “ co gn iz ab le as a fed eral

co ns ti tu ti on al cl ai m

. . . th e el em en ts ne ces sa ry to pr ov e it wou ld li ke ly m irr or th os e of st at e la w.”) (ci ti ng Co ok v. Sh el do n, 41 F.3 d 73

, 79

– 80 (2 d Ci r. 19 94 )); Bi ge lo w

v

. G a l w ay , 28 1 N.W .2d 83 5, 83 7 (Mi nn

. 19 78 ) (fi rs t el em en t of ab us e of pr oc e s s cl ai m is “ th e ex is te nc e of an ul te rio r pu rp os e”) (ci ti ng Hop pe v

. Klap pe ric h, 28

N.W .2d 78 0, 78 6 (Mi nn . 1 94 7) (es ta bl is hi ng el em en ts in ab us e of cri m in al pr oc es s

cas e)). Th is he ha s fa il ed to do

.

-7

-mo ment of arre st po li ce ha ve kn owl ed ge of fact s an d ci rcu m st an ces gr ou nd ed in

reas on ab ly tru st wor th y in fo rm at io n su ffi ci en t to warra nt a be li ef by a pr ud en t pe rs on

th at an of fen se ha s be en or is be in g co m m it te d by th e pe rs on to be arre st ed .’ ” Fri so n

v. Zeb ro , 33 9 F.3 d 99 4, 99 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Hart je, 25 1 F.3 d

77 1, 77 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 )). Fag na n was arre st ed aft er of fic ers ex ecu te d a va li d se arch

warra nt fo r il le ga ll y sh or te ne d gu ns at th e ho m e whe re he was li vi ng

. Dur in g th e

se arch

, of fic ers fo un d two sh or te ne d fir earm s in a di sp la y cas e fu ll of Fag na n’s gu ns

an d tro ph ie s. See id

. (o ffi cers ha d pr ob ab le c a u s e to arre st pl ai nt iff aft er th ey

ex ecu te d a va li d se arch warra nt

, fin di ng ev id en ce bo th o f c r i mi na l act iv it y an d of
pl ai nt iff ’s co nn ect io n to th e lo cat io n, ren de rin g su m m ary jud gm en t fo r de fen da nt s in

§ 19 83 cas e ap pr op ria te ). Fag na n’s arre st was su pp or te d by pr ob ab le cau se an d di d

no t v io la te hi s Fo ur th Am en dm en t ri gh ts

.

Defen da nt s arg ue th at Fag na n is co ll at eral ly es to pp ed fro m br in gi ng th es e

co ns ti tu ti on al cl ai m s ag ai ns t th em at al l. Mo re sp eci fic al ly, de fen da nt s as se rt th at

be cau se Fag na n di d no t pr ev ai l on hi s Fo ur th Am en dm en t-b as ed m ot io n to su pp res s

in st at e co ur t

, h e may n o t r el it ig at e th os e cl ai m s ag ai ns t th em in th is fo ru m

. See

Cru m le y , 32 4 F.3 d at 10 06 (“ Thi s co ur t g i v es a st at e co ur t jud gm en t th e sa m e

pr ecl us iv e effe ct it wou ld be gi ve n un de r th e la w of th e st at e in whi ch it was

ren de red .”) (ci ta ti on s om it te d)

. Bec au se we ag ree w i t h th e di st ric t co ur t th at th e

Lin o Lak es po li ce of

fic ers ’ co nd u ct di d no t vi ol at e Mo nt y Fag na n’s co ns ti tu ti on al
rig ht s, we, t oo , dec li ne to ad dr es s t hi s ar gu m en t.

II I. Co ncl us io n

W e affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t in fav or of th e Lin o

Lak es po li ce o ffi cers

.

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

-8

-