Facts
(If you are new to 1983 actions, click here for help)
A woman called the Roma, Texas police department in December 2021 to report a sexual assault. The alleged victim was the woman’s fifteen- year-old daughter, A.P. A.P. identified one of her attackers as her thirteen- year-old uncle, Y.M., and the other as Y.M.’s friend. The assault allegedly happened over the Thanksgiving holiday at A.P.’s father’s home.
A couple weeks later, details of a conversation between A.P and staff at a children’s advocacy center were also reported to Roma police. The police then applied to a juvenile court for a Directive to Apprehend for Y.M.— essentially, an arrest warrant.
Leonel Garza, Jr., a Roma police officer, arrived at Y.M.’s middle school on the morning of January 5, 2022, to take Y.M. into custody. According to an unsigned entry apparently written by Officer Garza in the police department’s incident report, Officer Garza met two school district police officers at the school. Officer Garza then went to the office of Principal Annette Garza and waited there, with the principal, for Y.M. to arrive.
When Y.M. arrived, Principal Garza—not Officer Garza— interviewed him. Principal Garza first informed Y.M. that he was going to be arrested. When Y.M. asked her why, she responded, “I don’t know, for something you and [redacted] did outside school.”Principal Garza told Y.M. that whatever he had done occurred “maybe over the holidays or before, I don’t know.”
Principal Garza asked Y.M. if he had a friend, apparently intending to give him the name that A.P.’s mother had given police for the second boy who attacked A.P. Though that name is redacted from the incident report, it was given in full to the police. Y.M. hesitated in answering, then asked if Principal Garza meant his cousin, who also attended the school. Principal Garza indicated that she knew Y.M.’s cousin and stated his last name, which Y.M. confirmed. That name led police to identify the second suspect in A.P.’s attack as M.A.C.
When the interrogation ended, Officer Garza arrested Y.M. and took him to a juvenile detention center. The next entry in the incident report is a narrative of the same conversation but indicates that the information is based on video from inside the principal’s office. It contains some discrepancies with the narrative above.
Both entries are undated. But the order in which they appear in the incident report suggest that they were not added until January 10 or after— that is, five days later. Based on Principal Garza’s interview with Y.M., Roma police obtained a Directive to Apprehend plaintiff M.A.C., who was fourteen years old at the time. On January 10, another Roma officer, Roberto Garcia, arrested M.A.C. at school. M.A.C. was handcuffed and taken to juvenile detention, where he was strip-searched and held overnight.
Three weeks later, on February 1, Roma police were visited by A.P.’s father, who told them that the wrong kid had been arrested. A.P.’s father said it was another teen, E.M., who had been at his home the day of the alleged assault, not M.A.C. He said he had already confronted E.M. and E.M.’s mother and that he knew M.A.C. and the kid has never gone to his house. A lieutenant told A.P.’s father that the police were working on clearing any errors that might have been done.
About three weeks after that, two Roma officers conducted a photographic lineup with A.P. and her mother. The lineup included photographs of E.M. and M.A.C. A.P. picked E.M. and told the officers she was 100% sure she picked the right person. She did not recognize any of the other individuals. On March 7, a Directive to Apprehend was issued for E.M., and he was arrested the next day.
M.A.C. sued Officer Garza under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Officer Garza argued that he was entitled to qualified immunity, which the district court denied. The 5th reversed, granting Garza immunity.
Analysis
M.A.C. argued his constitutional rights were violated by two separate theories. The 5th disagreed.
A. Malley claim
In Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (1986), SCOTUS concluded that an officer may be liable for a false arrest, despite the issuance of a valid arrest warrant, if the affidavit submitted to the magistrate in support of the warrant was so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in the existence of probable cause unreasonable. To succeed on such a claim, a plaintiff must show that a reasonably well-trained officer would know that the warrant affidavit failed to establish probable cause and that he should not have applied for the warrant.
But liability under Malley attaches only to the affiant and person who actually prepared, or was fully responsible for the preparation of, the warrant application. An officer who only provides a portion of the information included in the affidavit, on the other hand, cannot be held liable under Malley because he had no way of knowing whether the whole picture painted by the evidence established probable cause. See Melton.
Here, the complaint and attached incident report contain enough allegations to infer that the investigation leading to M.A.C.’s arrest was problematic, to say the least. Y.M.’s identification of M.A.C. during the muddled and confusing interview with Principal Garza, lacking any further corroboration, was not sufficient to warrant the belief that M.A.C. had committed a crime. Indeed, a conversation with A.P.’s father or A.P. herself would have dispelled suspicions against M.A.C.
But there is no allegation that Officer Garza was the affiant and person who actually prepared the warrant leading to M.A.C.’s arrest. Nor can we infer that he prepared or submitted the warrant affidavit based solely on the allegation that he participated in and documented the interrogation of Y.M. Accordingly, M.A.C. fails to state a Malley claim.
B. Franks claim
M.A.C. argues in the alternative that his allegations state a claim under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978). In Franks, SCOTUS recognized that officers may be held liable for submitting to a magistrate a warrant affidavit that supplies probable cause on its face but contains material misstatements or material omissions. To succeed under Franks, a plaintiff must show that an officer deliberately or recklessly provided false, material information or made knowing and intentional omissions that result in a warrant being issued without probable cause.
Unlike a Malley claim, an officer need not have prepared a warrant application to be subject to liability under Franks. He need only have assisted in preparing the application. That includes providing information to others with the purpose of having that information included in the application.
Here, M.A.C. contends that Officer Garza violated Franks by failing to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the information sworn in the arrest affidavit. But he did not allege, nor does the incident report show, that Officer Garza’s entry in the incident report contained false material information. The allegation is that Officer Garza relayed what he saw and heard during Y.M.’s interrogation. There is no allegation that Officer Garza relayed materially false information or that he omitted material details that he observed. Thus, M.A.C. fails to state a Franks claim.
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/23/23-40592.0.pdf