Opinion ID: 612581
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Materiality as to Todd Chism’s Arrest

Text: [17] Unlike the search warrants—which were supported by Gardner’s affidavit—the warrant for Todd’s arrest was supported by a Certification of Probable Cause (CPC) from Peters, a state prosecutor. In the CPC, Peters cited Gardner’s investigation as the source of his information. [18] Like Gardner’s affidavit, Peters’ CPC contained material false statements and omissions. For example, like Gardner’s affidavit, Peters’ CPC stated that the Chisms’ card was used to “purchase the images of child pornography,” which is a false statement. Also like Gardner’s affidavit, Peters’ CPC omitted critical information, including the fact that the IP addresses used to create the Yahoo! user accounts and websites were traced to Corn and Pleasant. Peters similarly withheld the fact that the two Yahoo! user accounts contained nonsensical identifying information for the Chisms, and that Nicole shared the 6907 credit card with Todd. These false statements and omissions were material as to Todd Chism’s arrest for the reasons discussed above. [19] That the CPC supporting probable cause was submitted by Peters—not Gardner—is inconsequential. In fact, the 16330 CHISM v. WASHINGTON STATE officers do not dispute that they might be held responsible for damages stemming from Todd’s arrest even though the warrant for this arrest was supported by Peters’ CPC rather than Gardner’s affidavit. Moreover, we have held that a “deliberate or reckless omission by a government official who is not the affiant can be the basis for a [suppression claim under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978)].” United States v. DeLeon, 979 F.2d 761, 764 (9th Cir. 1992). Because Franks suppression claims and judicial deception claims under § 1983 involve the same constitutional right, we do not see any reason to distinguish DeLeon from this case. Hervey, 65 F.3d at 789 (“The showing necessary to get to a jury in a section 1983 action is the same as the showing necessary to get an evidentiary hearing under Franks.”). Therefore, we hold that the Chisms have made out a judicial deception claim for Todd’s arrest.