Opinion ID: 2752196
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Officer Elder

Text: The district court concluded that Sperry’s complaint against Officer Elder failed on the first element of a malicious prosecution claim because Elder’s limited involvement in the investigation was not sufficient to show he “caused” Sperry’s prosecution. Sperry argues on appeal that the district court improperly believed Elder’s statement that he did not know Sperry had a disability and that Elder should have included his knowledge of Sperry’s disability in his report. Even if this court were to go further in its factual inferences in Sperry’s favor, as he desires, and assume that Elder knew Sperry had some type of cognitive disability, Elder’s assignment in this case was to memorialize a victim’s statement, not to investigate the crime or absolve Sperry. As this court stated in Taylor, generally for police officers, “the chain of causation [for a malicious prosecution claim] is broken by an indictment, absent an allegation of pressure or influence exerted by the police officers, or knowing misstatements made by the officers to the prosecutor.” 82 F.3d at 1564 (quoting Reed v. City of Chicago, 77 F.3d 1049 (7th Cir. 1996)). Elder did not make any knowing misstatements because the report memorialized the statements of a victim for further investigation; none of Elder’s “statements” were Elder’s own observations, and none went to the prosecutor directly. Thus, Elder did not commit a constitutional violation and is entitled to qualified immunity.