Opinion ID: 2959934
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: higazy ’s fifth amendment claim

Text: Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil suits for damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982).8 We have explained: In determining whether a particular right was clearly established at the time defendants acted, this Court has considered three factors: (1) whether the right in question was defined with “reasonable specificity”; (2) whether the decisional law of the Supreme Court and the applicable circuit court support the existence of the right in question; and (3) whether under preexisting law a reasonable defendant official would have understood that his or her acts were unlawful. Jermosen v. Smith, 945 F.2d 547, 550 (2d Cir. 1991). As the third part of the test provides, even where the law is “clearly established” and the scope of an official’s permissible conduct is 8 To rule on the issue of qualified immunity, this Court generally proceeds in two steps. First, this Court must address the threshold question of whether the amended complaint alleges the deprivation of an actual constitutional right. Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 609 (1999). The Supreme Court has explained that “[i]f no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity. On the other hand, if a violation could be made out on a favorable view of the parties’ submissions, the next, sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established.” Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001). A right is sufficiently clearly established if “it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.” Id. at 202. 13 “clearly defined,” the qualified immunity defense also protects an official if it was “objectively reasonable” for him at the time of the challenged action to believe his acts were lawful. Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 641 (1987) (explaining Harlow, 457 U.S. at 800); see also Robison v. Via, 821 F.2d 913, 920–21 (2d Cir. 1987). The matter of whether a right was clearly established at the pertinent time is a question of law. In contrast, the matter of whether a defendant official’s conduct was objectively reasonable, i.e., whether a reasonable official would reasonably believe his conduct did not violate a clearly established right, is a mixed question of law and fact. Kerman v. City of New York, 374 F.3d 93, 108–09 (2d Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). Moreover, “[a]lthough a conclusion that the defendant official’s conduct was objectively reasonable as a matter of law may be appropriate where there is no dispute as to the material historical facts, if there is such a dispute, the factual questions must be resolved by the factfinder.” Id. at 109 (citations omitted). “Though ‘immunity ordinarily should be decided by the court,’ that is true only in those cases where the facts concerning the availability of the defense are undisputed; otherwise, jury consideration is normally required . . . .” Oliveira v. Mayer, 23 F.3d 642, 649 (2d Cir. 1994) (quoting Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 228 (1991)). I. Did Higazy allege a violation of an actual constitutional right? Reviewing this question de novo, we hold that Higazy has properly alleged an actual deprivation of his Fifth Amendment constitutional right against compulsory self-incrimination only as to the second bail hearing, which took place on January 11, 2002.9 9 The specific issue we address here is the existence of a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Higazy was deprived of an actual constitutional right. As we discuss in greater detail below, to allege a deprivation of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, Higazy must allege not only that the confession was coerced, but that it was used against him in a criminal case. While we conclude here that Higazy’s allegedly coerced statements were used in a 14 The Fifth Amendment provides that no person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” U.S. Const. Amend. V. “It can be asserted in any proceeding, civil or criminal, administrative or judicial, investigatory or adjudicatory; and it protects against any disclosures which the witness reasonably believes could be used in a criminal prosecution or could lead to other evidence that might be so used.” Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 444–45 (1972) (footnotes omitted). In Kastigar, the Supreme Court declared that the Amendment’s “sole concern is to afford protection against being forced to give testimony leading to the infliction of [criminal] penalties.” Id. at 453 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The Fifth Amendment’s self-incrimination clause bars the government from using a compelled confession in any criminal case. The test for whether a statement was improperly obtained by coercion is “determined by the totality of the circumstances.” Deshawn E. by Charlotte E. v. Safir, 156 F.3d 340, 346 (2d Cir. 1998). In order to decide the summary judgment motion, and only for that purpose, the district court assumed that Higazy’s confession had been coerced. Higazy, 346 F. Supp. 2d at 447 n.20. Because Templeton’s motion for summary judgment did not challenge the sufficiency of Higazy’s allegation that his statements were coerced, see id., the issue of coercion (or not) is not before us, and we too assume that the statements were coerced. In Weaver v. Brenner, 40 F.3d 527 (2d Cir. 1994), we concluded that a coerced statement did not have to be introduced at trial to violate a plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment rights. We held criminal case, this is different from the issues of whether Templeton caused the statements to be used at Higazy’s hearing and whether Templeton’s actions were a proximate cause of Higazy’s detention, both of which we conclude raise genuine issues of material fact that should be decided by the fact finder. 15 “that use or derivative use of a compelled statement at any criminal proceeding against the declarant violates that person’s Fifth Amendment rights; use of the statement at trial is not required.” Id. at 535 (emphasis in original). We concluded that the use of a coerced confession before a grand jury was a violation of the self-incrimination clause: “The use of a coerced confession before a grand jury plainly makes the [person who gave the statement] a witness against himself in a criminal case, one leading to the infliction of criminal penalties against him. Such use, if the confession is found to have been coerced, violates [the declarant’s] constitutional rights . . . .” Id. at 536. The Supreme Court more recently discussed the meaning of the Amendment’s phrase, “in any criminal case,” in Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760 (2003). The Supreme Court concluded that an officer could not be subjected to civil liability for an alleged violation of the privilege against compelled self-incrimination where the coerced statement is not thereafter used against the person who gave the statement. In his plurality opinion, Justice Thomas explained that “mere coercion does not violate the text of the Self-Incrimination Clause absent use of the compelled statements in a criminal case against the witness.” Id. at 769. Thus, while the privilege may be invoked in any proceeding, a violation of the constitutional right “occurs only if one has been compelled to be a witness against himself in a criminal case.” Id. at 770. In Chavez, Justice Thomas concluded in his plurality opinion that “a ‘criminal case’ at the very least requires the initiation of legal proceedings.” Id. at 766. Justice Thomas quoted Blyew v. United States, 80 U.S. 581, 595 (1872), which explained that “[t]he words ‘case’ and ‘cause’ are constantly used as synonyms in statutes and judicial decisions, each meaning a proceeding in court, a suit, or action,” and Black’s Law Dictionary 215 (6th ed. 1990), which defined “case” as “[a] general 16 term for an action, cause, suit, or controversy at law . . . a question contested before a court of justice.” 538 U.S. at 766. Declining to decide “the precise moment when a ‘criminal case’ commences,” Justice Thomas wrote that “it is enough to say that police questioning does not constitute a ‘case’ any more than a private investigator’s precomplaint activities constitute a ‘civil case.’” Id. at 767. However, Justice Thomas did explain, “it is not until [statements compelled by a police interrogation are used] in a criminal case that a violation of the SelfIncrimination Clause occurs.” Id. at 767.10 Justice Souter concurred in an opinion joined by Justice Breyer and concluded that it was unnecessary to expand the privilege against selfincrimination to include a claim for civil liability against an officer who took a coerced statement when that statement was not used against the person claiming the privilege. Id. at 779. Justice Souter did not attempt to define when a criminal case commenced for the purpose of determining when a statement is used in a criminal case against a person. By the time of Higazy’s January 11, 2002 bail hearing, a criminal complaint had been filed against him and he was subject to detention on that complaint.11 The proceeding was an 10 Justice Thomas cited United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 264 (1990), for this proposition. The Court in Verdugo-Urquidez had actually indicated that a violation of the self-incrimination clause “occurs only at trial.” Id. But Verdugo-Urquidez was in fact dealing with a violation of the Fourth Amendment and it is clear that Justice Thomas did not read it as limiting the application of the self-incrimination clause to statements that were introduced at trial rather than in other parts of a “criminal case.” Similarly, Justice Kennedy, who wrote a concurring and dissenting opinion in Chavez, and who would have found that a violation of the self-incrimination clause is complete when a coerced confession is taken, did not find that Verdugo-Urquidez required the use of a coerced statement at trial to complete a violation of the self-incrimination clause. See Chavez, 538 U.S. at 792 (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). 11 The district court and the parties refer to the proceeding before Judge Maas as an arraignment. However, an arraignment occurs after an indictment or information has been filed. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 10. The bail hearing before Judge Maas was part of an initial appearance by 17 initial appearance on the criminal complaint, and the determination of bail was part of that proceeding. The proceeding was governed by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.12 In Mitchell v. United States, 526 U.S. 314, 327 (1999), the Supreme Court held that the protection against self-incrimination applies to the sentencing phase of a criminal trial. There, Justice Kennedy wrote, “[t]o maintain that sentencing proceedings are not part of ‘any criminal case’ is contrary to the law and to common sense.” Id. at 327. Although Justice Kennedy was discussing sentencing, there are several reasons why a bail hearing is a “proceeding in court,” as the Supreme Court in Chavez defined “case” when it quoted Black’s Law Dictionary (“general term for an action, cause, suit, or controversy at law . . . a question contested before a court of justice.”). See 588 U.S. at 766–67.13 The status of bail hearings under other constitutional provisions supports the conclusion that such a hearing is part of a criminal case against an individual against whom charges are pending. In the Sixth Amendment context, the Supreme Court found that a bail hearing is a “critical stage of the State’s criminal process at which the accused is as much entitled to such aid the defendant on a criminal complaint. The complaint was signed by Special Agent Bruno before Judge Maas. The procedures for an initial appearances are governed by Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which includes guidance on what to tell the defendant about his rights, the charge(s) against him, and the available means of securing pretrial release. See Fed. R. Cr. P. 5(d). 12 As for the December 28, 2001, bail hearing we need not decide whether Higazy has properly alleged an actual deprivation of his Fifth Amendment right because we hold that it was not clearly established in December 2001 that a bail hearing in a material witness proceeding was, for Fifth Amendment purposes, a criminal case. We disagree that Noto v. United States, 76 S. Ct. 255 (1955), established the right in question. 13 The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which are “intended to provide for the just determination of every criminal proceeding,” Fed. R. Crim. P. 2, make specific provisions for bail proceedings. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 46(a). 18 (of counsel) . . . as at the trial itself.” Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U.S. 1, 9–10 (1970) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted; ellipsis in original). The Court followed this logic when discussing the Eight Amendment, in Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1, 6–7 (1951), where it also treated a bail hearing as “a criminal proceeding.” This accords with our case law on bail hearings. In United States v. Abuhamra, 389 F.3d 309, 323 (2d Cir. 2004), we wrote that “[b]ail hearings fit comfortably within the sphere of adversarial proceedings closely related to trial.” There, we explained that: [B]ail hearings, like probable cause and suppression hearings, are frequently hotly contested and require a court’s careful consideration of a host of facts about the defendant and the crimes charged . . . . Bail hearings do not determine simply whether certain evidence may be used against a defendant at trial or whether certain persons will serve as trial jurors; bail hearings determine whether a defendant will be allowed to retain, or forced to surrender, his liberty during the pendency of his criminal case. Id. at 323–24. The issue there was whether ex parte evidence could be used against a defendant in a bail proceeding. We held, “neither the defendant nor the public would be well served by having determinations that so immediately affect even this reduced interest routinely made in closed proceedings or on secret evidence.” Id. at 324. Based on our prior rulings on the Fifth Amendment and bail hearings, and Justice Thomas’s definition of “criminal case” in Chavez, which illuminates the cases decided before January 2002, on which we may rely, we hold that Higazy’s initial appearance on January 11, 2002, which included the determination of whether he would be detained or released on bail, was part of the criminal case against Higazy. ii. Was the constitutional right clearly established as of December 2001? 19 In December 2001 and January 2002, the Fifth Amendment right that Higazy claims with respect to the January 11, 2002 bail hearing was defined with “reasonable specificity” and supported by Second Circuit case law. It was clearly established in December 2001 and January 2002 that a coerced confession could not constitutionally be used against a defendant in a criminal case, and it was clearly established that a bail hearing, after criminal charges had been filed, was part of a criminal case. This is a question of law, which we review de novo. See Kerman, 374 F.3d at 93. In Weaver, we addressed a very similar issue to the one we face here, and explained: “Appellants contend that the coerced statement must be introduced at the individual’s trial before the [Fifth] Amendment is violated. We disagree.” 40 F.3d at 535. We ultimately concluded, as noted above: “As a consequence, we hold that the use or the derivative use of a compelled statement at any criminal proceeding against the declarant violates that person’s Fifth Amendment rights; use of the statement at trial is not required.” Id. Significantly, we found that this right was sufficiently well established at the time of the alleged violation to satisfy the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis.14 On January 11, 2002, it was clearly established that the FBI could not coerce a confession and later use that confession in a criminal case, including in a proceeding before a judge after criminal charges had been filed, to impose the penalty of continued detention. The 14 United States v. Awadallah, 349 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 2003) (holding that the federal material witness statute can be applied constitutionally to a grand jury witness) is not relevant to this case, because it dealt solely with whether a material witness could be held for grand jury testimony, not whether a bail proceeding—per se or as part of a material witness proceeding—was a criminal case for the purposes of the Fifth Amendment's self-incrimination clause. 20 government argues that there was conflicting Supreme Court law as to whether a Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination was only a trial right, or extended more broadly. We disagree. Chavez rejected the proposition that there is a completed violation of the selfincrimination clause when a statement is obtained by coercion but never used against the declarant. Justice Thomas’s plurality opinion provided some definition for “criminal case” but Justice Souter’s concurring opinion did not attempt to provide such a definition. There is no hint in any of these opinions that the use of an allegedly coerced statement at an initial appearance, after a criminal complaint has been filed, is not use in a “criminal case.”15 Our decision in Weaver, as well as the case law we cited therein, lead us to conclude that in December 2001, when the confession was allegedly coerced, and in January 2002, when the confession was used at Higazy’s bail hearing, it was clearly established that the use of the allegedly coerced statement at that hearing completed the violation of Higazy’s Fifth Amendment’s guarantee against compulsory self-incrimination. iii. Was Templeton’s conduct objectively reasonable? Where there is a dispute about the material facts, this question must be resolved by the fact finder. See Kerman, 374 F.3d at 109. Again, we assume for the purposes of this appeal that Templeton coerced Higazy’s statements, because this issue was not raised before the district court; these facts were not disputed for the purposes of summary judgment. Although Templeton asked Higazy about his involvement in September 11, he later told Higazy, during the same 15 The Supreme Court decided Chavez after Higazy’s bail hearing, and thus its holding does not bear on the issue of qualified immunity. However, we find Justice Thomas’s analysis helpful insofar as it demonstrates where the law stood when Chavez was decided. 21 interview, that he knew Higazy had nothing to do with the attack. On December 27, 2001, and in the days following the polygraph examination, Templeton could not have known exactly how he would use the confession because he could not predict the course that the case would take. The use of the confession would either ripen into a Fifth Amendment violation or it would not —that is the first question that we must examine, and a question that we have answered in the affirmative. Indeed, it ripened when it was used at the second bail hearing to deprive Higazy of his freedom. The objective prong of the qualified immunity test asks whether an officer in Templeton’s shoes would have known that he was violating the right in question. We believe that a reasonable jury could conclude that he would. For the purposes of our inquiry here, we conclude that when the facts are cast in the light most favorable to Higazy, an officer in Templeton’s shoes would have understood that the confession he allegedly coerced from Higazy would have been used in a criminal case against Higazy and that his actions therefore violated Higazy’s constitutional right to be free from compelled self-incrimination. Templeton essentially argues that it was objectively reasonable for him to believe that this was not a criminal case and therefore his conduct was objectively reasonable. However, a reasonable fact finder could conclude that Templeton obtained the statements from Higazy so that they could be used in a criminal case against him. A reasonable fact finder could conclude that it was not reasonable for an officer to believe that it was constitutional to coerce a confession and then to hand that information to a prosecutor—without divulging the means by which the confession was acquired— for use in a criminal case. 22
The district court did not reach the issue of causation; instead it “summarize[d] defendant’s argument” so it could “complete the description of the legal debate.” Higazy, 346 F. Supp. 2d at 449. There are two separate questions that must be resolved at trial: whether Templeton caused the use of the allegedly coerced statements at the January 11, 2002 bail hearing and whether Templeton’s conduct was a proximate cause of Higazy’s detention after that bail hearing. Templeton argues that the actions of Higazy’s lawyer, the prosecutor and the Magistrate Judge were superseding causes that cut off his liability. Tort defendants, including those sued in Bivens actions, are responsible for the “natural consequences” of their actions. See Monroe v Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 187 (1961) (referring to defendants in Section 1983 actions); Kerman, 374 F.3d at 126 (same); Zahrey v. Coffey, 221 F.3d 342, 357 (2d Cir. 2000) (involving a Bivens action). We have explained that “‘foreseeability and causation . . . are issues generally and more suitably entrusted to fact finder adjudication.’” Lombard v. Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc., 280 F.3d 209, 216 (2d Cir. 2002) (quoting Palka v. Servicemaster Mgmt. Servs. Corp., 83 N.Y.2d 579 (N.Y. 1994)); see also McKinley v. City of Mansfield, 404 F.3d 418, 437–438 (6th Cir. 2005) (“It is hard to see how law enforcement officials could ‘ultimately impair’ the right against self-incrimination if not by compelling a suspect to make incriminating statements that are later used against him at trial. It is equally hard to see how officials whose conduct ultimately impaired a citizen's Fifth Amendment rights could nonetheless escape civil liability merely because a different state official put the statements into evidence at trial.”). Based on the facts here, viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, we conclude that the issues of causation depend on the resolution of issues 23 of fact that cannot be decided as a matter of law. If the fact finder concludes that there were superseding causes cutting off Templeton’s liability, Higazy’s action against him will fail. We explained in Townes v. City of New York, 176 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 1999), that an action to vindicate a constitutional right (there, a Section 1983 action) employs the tort principle of proximate causation. Townes, 176 F.3d at 146. The same is true of Bivens actions. Cf. Gierlinger v. Gleason, 160 F.3d 858, 872 (2d Cir. 1998). In Townes, we explained that this Court adheres to the common law definition of superseding cause: “an act of a third person or other force which by its intervention prevents the actor from being liable for harm to another which his antecedent negligence is a substantial factor in bringing about.” Townes, 176 F.3d at 147 (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 440 (1965)).16 The inquiry in Townes was whether the conviction and incarceration were “proximately (or legally) caused by the defendants’ constitutional torts.” Id. at 146. After applying proximate cause analysis, we found that the unconstitutional search and seizure was not a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s conviction because of “the trial court’s refusal to suppress the evidence, which is an intervening and superseding cause of Townes’s conviction.” Id.17 16 Put differently, a superseding cause is “[a]n intervening act that the law considers sufficient to override the cause for which the original tortfeasor was responsible, thereby exonerating that tortfeasor from liability.” Black’s Law Dictionary 213 (7th ed. 1999). 17 Townes was decided as an appeal of a decision granting summary judgment, but there, the facts were such that we could determine proximate cause as a matter of law. The same is not true here. 24 In Zahrey, 221 F.3d 342, we expanded our Townes holding: “there is a constitutional right not to be deprived of liberty as a result of the fabrication of evidence by a government officer acting in an investigatory capacity, at least where the officer foresees that he himself will use the evidence with a resulting deprivation of liberty.” Id. at 344. The question in Zahrey was framed as “whether the deprivation of liberty may be considered a legally cognizable result of the initial misconduct.” Id. at 351. In Zahrey, we discussed our decision in Townes: In the context of criminal law enforcement, courts have differed as to the circumstances under which acts of subsequent participants in the legal system are superseding causes that avoid liability of an initial actor. If the subsequent participant exercises independent judgment, the chain of causation has sometimes been held to have been broken. Thus, in Townes v. City of New York, 176 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 1999), we ruled that a trial judge’s erroneous decision not to suppress unlawfully seized evidence was an exercise of independent judgment that avoided liability of the police officers who seized the evidence for the ensuing conviction and incarceration. See id. at 146–47. Police officers have also been insulated from liability for any deprivation of liberty resulting from their misconduct by the intervening acts of other participants in the criminal justice system. Id. at 351 (citations and footnote omitted). However, the analysis did not end there. We immediately qualified our characterization of Townes: On the other hand, the Supreme Court has ruled that a judge’s decision to issue an arrest warrant did not break the causal chain between the act of a police officer who submitted an affidavit and the arrest where “a reasonably well-trained officer in [the same] position would have known that his affidavit failed to establish probable cause.” Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 345 (1986). Applying Malley, we have ruled that the decision of a sentencing judge does not break the causal chain between the wrongful recommendation of a probation officer and an unconstitutional sentence. See Warner v. Orange County Dep't of Prob., 115 F.3d 1068, 1071 (2d Cir. 1997), reinstated after opinion vacated, 173 F.3d 120, 121 (2d Cir. 1999); see also Wagenmann v. Adams, 829 F.2d 196, 212–13 (1st Cir. 1987) (decision of court clerk acting as bail commissioner in setting bail did not insulate police officer from liability for violating plaintiff's right to be free from excessive bail). We have also sustained a claim against a police officer, despite the subsequent 25 actions of a prosecutor and a grand jury. See White v. Frank, 855 F.2d 956, 962 (2d Cir. 1988) (“As with the grand jury . . . the public prosecutor’s role in a criminal prosecution will not necessarily shield a complaining witness from subsequent civil liability where the witness’s testimony is knowingly and maliciously false.”) Id. Based on this analysis, we explained: These differing results seem to place in tension the principle that the “intervening exercise of independent judgment” will break a causal chain, Townes, 176 F.3d at 147, and the principle that defendants in section 1983 cases are liable for consequences caused by “reasonably foreseeable intervening forces,” Gutierrez-Rodriguez v. Cartagena, 882 F.2d 553, 561 (1st Cir. 1989) (internal quotation marks omitted). Some courts have sought to resolve the tension by considering the intervening act of a decision-maker not to be an exercise of truly independent judgment, and therefore reasonably foreseeable, if caused by pressure or misleading information provided by the actor whom the plaintiff seeks to hold liable. Id. at 351–52. While in Townes we observed that a defendant cannot rely on the alleged existence of a superseding cause when that subsequent decision-maker has been deceived by the defendant’s actions, see Townes, 176 F.3d at 147, in Zahrey we explained that “[e]ven if the intervening decision-maker (such as a prosecutor, grand jury, or judge) is not misled or coerced, it is not readily apparent why the chain of causation should be considered broken where the initial wrongdoer can reasonably foresee that his misconduct will contribute to an ‘independent’ decision that results in a deprivation of liberty.” 221 F.3d at 352. In a footnote, we explained that “[t]he initial wrongdoer might avoid liability where the intervening decision-maker would have precipitated the deprivation of liberty, even in the absence of the antecedent misconduct; in that circumstance, ‘but for’ causation could be claimed to be lacking.” Id. at 352 n.8. Zahrey 26 addresses a prosecutor who knowingly used wrongfully obtained evidence that he himself obtained, but says nothing about a police officer who might knowingly provide wrongful evidence. Defendants in Bivens actions may be liable for consequences caused by reasonably foreseeable intervening forces; here, the chain of causation need not be considered broken if Templeton deceived the subsequent decision maker, see Townes, 176 F.3d at 147, or could “reasonably foresee that his misconduct [would] contribute to an ‘independent’ decision that results in a deprivation of liberty,” Zahrey, 221 F.3d at 352. When the facts are viewed in the light most favorable to Higazy, we cannot conclude as a matter of law that there are sufficient superseding causes to cut off Templeton’s liability. Our recent decision in Wray v. City of New York, 490 F.3d 189 (2d Cir. 2007), is not to the contrary. There, a police officer who arranged an unduly suggestive station house showup was not found liable on a Section 1983 claim, because the violation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights “was caused by the ill-considered acts and decisions of the prosecutor and trial judge,” id. at 193, which the officer could not reasonably have foreseen. “It is always possible that a judge who is not misled or deceived will err; but such an error is not reasonably foreseeable . . . it is not the ‘legally cognizable result’ of an investigative abuse.” Id. at 195. By contrast, construing the facts in the light most favorable to Higazy as the non-moving party, a fact finder could conclude that Templeton could reasonably have foreseen that a coerced confession would be used against Higazy and would lead to Higazy’s detention. 27 While the record tells us very little about Templeton’s actions following the polygraph examination, or Higazy’s communications with his attorney about what transpired during the polygraph interview, there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether Templeton caused the use of the confession and whether Templeton’s conduct was a proximate cause of Higazy’s detention. At the January 11, 2002 bail hearing before Judge Maas, there were several factors that could have militated in Higazy’s favor: there were at least twenty local people who vouched for him and said they would allow him to reside in their homes; Higazy had no criminal record; and Higazy had a brother in Ithaca, New York, and a girlfriend in Pennsylvania. Higazy was willing to accept supervisory conditions such as wearing an ankle bracelet and “any other monitoring device that the Court might deem necessary.” The government argued that Higazy was a flight risk because, inter alia, “his behavior since his arrest in mid-December [] has proven that he is a poor candidate for court supervision because he’s repeatedly lied to law enforcement officers.” Apparently referring to the Templeton interrogation, the government continued, adding: “[i]t’s entirely possible given the number of different false statements he’s made on different occasions an indictment would contain multiple counts.” And shortly thereafter: “[h]e was questioned about the radio. At first [Higazy] denied ownership of the radio and later admitted ownership of the radio but told three different versions of how he had come into possession of the radio. So this is not somebody who can be deemed trustworthy, somebody who’s not deemed untrustworthy. Other things being the same, I submit is not [sic] a good candidate for bail.” 28 These arguments, in part, led Judge Maas to tell Higazy’s attorney: “[o]n the face of it it appears that insofar as the complaint charges the defendant with making false statements, it seems to me [that the government] has the better of the argument in that this does seem to be a very strong case of false statements made by your client.” 18 There is not enough evidence in the record about what communications occurred between Templeton and the prosecutor, and Higazy and his attorney, to allow us to decide, as a matter of law, whether there were superseding causes cutting off Templeton’s liability. 18 While the factual allegations relating to the December 28, 2001, bail hearing, are not as relevant as the January 11, 2002, hearing, at which Higazy’s Fifth Amendment rights were violated, we provide this short summary of the December 28 hearing because we believe it is sheds important light on the role of the confession in both hearings. At the hearing on March 18, 2002, after the criminal charges against Higazy had been