Opinion ID: 811594
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: False Arrest and Detention

Text: Livers and Sampson both allege the Cass appellants and NSP appellants violated their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights against arrest without probable cause. The district court denied qualified immunity on these claims based on evidence indicating “a reasonably well-trained officer would have known that there was no arguable probable cause to arrest” Livers or Sampson. It was clearly established by 2006 that a seizure without “a truthful factual showing sufficient to constitute probable cause” violates the Fourth Amendment. Hedges v. Poletis, 177 F.3d 1071, 1074 (8th Cir. 1999). For purposes of qualified immunity, we must inquire whether it was objectively reasonable for the officers to think they had probable cause at the time Livers and Sampson were arrested. See Amrine, 522 F.3d at 832. A person is seized “within the meaning of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments . . . when, ‘taking into account all of the circumstances surrounding the encounter, the police conduct would have communicated to a reasonable person that he was not at liberty to ignore the police presence and go about his business.’” Kaupp v. Texas, 538 U.S. 626, 629 (2003) (quoting Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 437 (1991)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Though Livers’ interrogation started as voluntary, Livers was seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, at the latest, when Investigator Lambert told Livers after the polygraph examination, “Do you think you are going to get on a bus -30- and you are going to leave? You are going to leave us? No, you’re not.” Shortly thereafter, Livers expressed his desire to leave and belief that he could not. Investigator Schenck and Investigator Lambert did not contradict this statement. A reasonable person in Livers’ position would not believe he was free to leave. At the time Livers was seized, he had not yet begun to confess. At that point, the only information implicating Livers in the murders was speculation and the questionable polygraph results. Rumor alone is not sufficient to establish probable cause. See Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98, 101 (1959). Livers proffered a polygraph expert’s statement that Livers’s polygraph results could not be read as deceptive. A jury reasonably could question Investigator O’Callaghan’s exam and purposes. The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to Livers, indicates a reasonable officer who knew of the polygraph examination’s flaws would not reasonably have thought he had probable cause to arrest Livers. A reasonable jury could infer from the close cooperation between Investigators Schenck, Lambert, and O’Callaghan during Livers’ April 25 interrogations that Investigators Schenck and Lambert knew the polygraph examination was fundamentally flawed.12 The Cass appellants contend they are entitled to qualified immunity to the extent Livers claims they prolonged Livers’ detention. They maintain any delay in Livers’ release was caused by Livers’ attorney’s failure to inform Cox of Livers’ mental limitations. This is a fact question not appropriately resolved at this stage. 12 Any after-acquired probable cause appellants cite now is irrelevant. The Cass appellants argue that because a state court judge presiding over Sampson’s criminal proceedings later found Livers’ confession created probable cause to arrest Sampson, appellants, who were not trained as lawyers, must have had probable cause to detain Livers. We decline to accept the state court opinion as dispositive on this issue. -31-
At the time Investigator Schenck arrested Sampson, the only information implicating Sampson was Livers’ confession. As discussed above, a jury could find Livers’ confession was coerced. No reasonable officer could believe statements from a coerced confession could alone provide probable cause to arrest Sampson. Investigator Schenck knew of the circumstances surrounding Livers’ confession because he participated in it. The district court properly denied qualified immunity on Sampson’s Fourth Amendment claims against Investigator Schenck. None of the other appellants were involved in Sampson’s arrest, and would be entitled to qualified immunity on Sampson’s false arrest claim, except to the extent they were involved in a conspiracy to violate Sampson’s constitutional rights. See Slavin, 574 F.2d at 1263, see also infra section II.G.1 (discussing Sampson’s conspiracy claim).