Court Opinion

ID: 9407979
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-11 00:00:36.881466+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:41.001901
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50948         Document: 00516815197             Page: 1      Date Filed: 07/10/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 22-50948
                                     Summary Calendar                                   FILED
                                     ____________                                     July 10, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   Fabrizio Bisetti,                                                                   Clerk

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Officer Brendan McMorrow, Austin Police Department,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                                USDC No. 1:19-CV-616
                      ______________________________

   Before Clement, Southwick, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Brendan McMorrow, an officer with the Austin Police Department,
   appeals his denial of qualified immunity. Because we lack jurisdiction to hear
   this matter, the appeal is DISMISSED.

                                            * * *

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50948        Document: 00516815197              Page: 2      Date Filed: 07/10/2023

                                         No. 22-50948

           Fabrizio Bisetti alleges that—following a domestic disturbance
   investigation—officer Brendan McMorrow violated his Fourth Amendment
   rights. Specifically, he contends that McMorrow arrested him despite
   “kn[owing] that he lacked probable cause to make an arrest” as evidenced by
   sworn statements McMorrow later made in Bisetti’s divorce proceedings. In
   response, McMorrow filed a motion for summary judgement insisting that
   he had probable cause to arrest Bisetti. But, the district court denied that
   motion, finding there’s a “fact issue” as to whether McMorrow violated
   clearly established law, namely whether McMorrow truthfully attested to the
   facts behind Bisetti’s arrest in a probable cause affidavit, and the impact of
   those statements on a hypothetical probable cause determination. 1

           For an “appeal of denial of summary judgment on the basis of
   qualified immunity, our jurisdiction is limited to examining the materiality of
   factual disputes that the district court determined were genuine.” Cole v.
   Carson, 935 F.3d 444, 452 (5th Cir. 2019) (en banc). Importantly, we can’t
   “consider a different set of facts” from those identified by the district court,
   and we don’t “challenge the district court’s assessments [on] the sufficiency
   of the evidence.” Id at 452–53 (citations omitted). Because McMorrow’s
   appeal only challenges the genuineness of the factual disputes recognized by
   the district court, whether by advancing more favorable (but unrecognized)

           _____________________
           1
             Notably, McMorrow points this court to a video of the incident. But, the district
   court relied on “McMorrow’s testimony” in Bisetti’s divorce proceeding “[as] evidence
   that he did indeed harbor serious doubts about the probable cause to arrest Bisetti.” Due
   to the nature of the evidence (i.e., McMorrow’s subjective belief via statements made long
   after the arrest), video evidence would not resolve, or speak to, that factual dispute.

                                               2
Case: 22-50948         Document: 00516815197                Page: 3       Date Filed: 07/10/2023

                                           No. 22-50948

   allegations or attacking the “sufficiency” of the evidence, he fails to present
   any issue that we can rule upon at this time. 2 See id. at 453 (“We lack
   jurisdiction to reconsider the district court’s factual determinations on an
   appeal from denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity.”).
   Consequently, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

           _____________________
           2
                Viewing the disputed material facts in Bisetti’s favor, including whether
   McMorrow believed his statements in the probable cause affidavit, we can’t say that the
   district court erred in its qualified immunity determination. After all, the right to be “free
   from police arrest without a good faith showing of probable cause” is clearly established.
   Winfrey v. Rogers, 901 F.3d 483, 494 (5th Cir. 2018); Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154
   (1978). Notably, McMorrow raises two alternative arguments. But, those fail, too. First, he
   argues that “[t]he law was not clearly established [at the time of the arrest] that an affidavit
   articulating probable cause for an uncharged offense would not validate legal process
   secured on insufficient probable cause for a charged offense identified in the affidavit.”
   But, McMorrow didn’t make that argument below. So, it’s waived. See Rollins v. Home
   Depot USA, Inc., 8 F.4th 393, 397 (5th Cir. 2021) (“A party forfeits an argument by failing
   to raise it in the first instance in the district court—thus raising it for the first time on
   appeal . . . .”). Next, he argues that his statements in the probable cause affidavit would
   support another crime in Texas, assault under Texas Penal Code § 22.01(a)(3). However,
   taking the facts in a light most favorable to Bisetti, the affidavit doesn’t support such a
   charge at this stage.

                                                  3