Opinion ID: 811594
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sampson’s Claim

Text: Sampson contends on appeal that appellants violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination by coercing Livers’ confession. To the extent Sampson raised this issue in the district court,11 the district court erred in denying qualified immunity on this claim because a plaintiff does not have standing to claim a Fifth Amendment self-incrimination violation based on someone else’s coerced confession. See van Leeuwen v. United States, 868 F.2d 300, 301-02 (8th Cir. 1989). 11 Sampson arguably waived any such claim by not clearly raising it in his amended complaint. See Hulsey v. Astrue, 622 F.3d 917, 924 (8th Cir. 2010) (noting an issue not raised below is waived). See also discussion, supra n.9 (explaining a Fifth Amendment self-incrimination violation only occurs when the covered statements are used against the speaker in a criminal prosecution). -24-