Kapinski v. City of Albuquerque ( 2020 )

FILED
PUBLISH United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
July 6, 2020
TENTH CIRCUIT Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
ANTHONY KAPINSKI,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 19-2149
CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE; TERRA
JUAREZ,
Defendants - Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
(D.C. NO. 1:18-CV-00716-SCY-GJF)
Submitted on the Briefs
Andrew B. Indahl, Altura Law Firm LLC, Albuquerque, New Mexico, for
Appellant.
Kristin J. Dalton, Managing Assistant City Attorney, City of Albuquerque Legal
Department, Albuquerque, New Mexico, for Appellee.
Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, BALDOCK, and CARSON, Circuit Judges.
TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge.
After shooting and killing two men, Anthony Kapinski was arrested and
prosecuted for murder. But at trial, the jury found him not guilty on the basis of
self-defense. Trial evidence included video surveillance footage of the incident.
Kapinski then brought civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against
Detective Terra Juarez and the City of Albuquerque, alleging constitutional
violations stemming from Detective Juarez’s failure to mention the video
surveillance footage in her warrant affidavit for Kapinski’s arrest. He argued that
if the court issuing the arrest warrant had been made aware of the video footage,
it would not have found probable cause supporting the warrant.
Detective Juarez moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity
grounds, and the district court granted her motion. The court held Kapinski failed
to show a constitutional violation because the video footage would not have
negated probable cause for his arrest, and, even if Detective Juarez’s omission ran
afoul of the Fourth Amendment, she was nonetheless entitled to summary
judgment because the law on this issue was not clearly established.
We agree Kapinski fails to show a clearly established constitutional
violation and therefore AFFIRM.
I. Background
On June 2, 2017, Anthony Kapinski shot and killed Paul Francia and Jordan
Mucher amidst a late-night altercation in a crowded church parking lot in
-2-
Albuquerque, New Mexico. Two of the church’s surveillance cameras captured
the incident on video. Immediately after the shooting, Kapinski fled. The
Albuquerque Police Department reached the scene shortly thereafter.
Detective Terra Juarez was one of the first officers to arrive. She began
her investigation by conducting and recording interviews with several
eyewitnesses:
• Manuel Castro reported that he “heard what sounded like a
vehicle backfire.” App. at 39. When he looked in the direction of
the sound, he noticed a male pointing a gun at another male. He saw
the male with the gun shoot twice and then watched as the other man
fell to the ground. The male with the gun then fled.
• Tyler Schwebke, a friend of both victims, reported that he had
arrived at the parking lot with Francia and Mucher. He stated that
“[a]ll three were upset with [Kapinski] because he had stolen vehicle
parts from them in the past.” Id. at 40. Although Schwebke did not
personally see the shooting, he reported that he heard gunshots and
then noticed Kapinski leaving the parking lot, at which point he
realized Francia and Mucher had been shot.
• Mariah Molt reported that she was dating one of the victims,
Francia. She said that she saw Francia and another male talking with
-3-
Kapinski near Kapinski’s vehicle. She heard Francia say “you know
who the f**k I am” to Kapinski and then punch him. Id. at 40.
According to Molt, Kapinski fell back into the driver’s seat, and then
another male that she did not know began fighting with Francia. At
this time, Mucher got involved in the fight to assist Francia. Then
Molt said she heard gunshots and saw muzzle flashes coming “from
inside the car where [Kapinski] was at.” Id.By the time Detective Juarez completed the eyewitness interviews, it was
past 2:00 A.M. in the morning of the next day. Sometime between 3:00 A.M. and
3:57 A.M., Detective Juarez obtained and viewed the church’s surveillance tapes. 1
The videos show, 2 in mute black and white footage, Kapinski standing near the
open front driver’s side door to his vehicle. He is talking with an acquaintance,
whom Detective Juarez later identifies as “Aiden.” Id. at 59 60. A group of
people, including Francia and Mucher, approach Kapinski. Some in the group
1
Footage from both surveillance cameras is in the appendix on appeal and
has been viewed by the court. Because the videos capture the same scene, we do
not differentiate between them here, but draw on both.
2
We relay here only what is indisputably shown by the videos, and
therefore necessary to take as a matter of fact. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372,
378 81 (2007) (holding that where a video depicts facts in such a clear manner so
that “no reasonable jury” could have believed an alternative story, then the court
must “view[] the facts in the light depicted by the videotape”). We address below
Kapinski’s argument that the video footage should be construed as depicting more
than that.
-4-
hang back several feet away from Francia and Kapinski as they watch the
confrontation.
The critical events unfold over a matter of seconds. Francia walks up close
to Kapinski, talking to him from a couple feet away. Aiden remains standing
right next to Kapinski and Francia. Francia punches Kapinski in the face,
apparently without provocation, and continues to throw several punches.
Kapinski falls back into the driver’s seat of the car. He remains out of view of
the cameras, but Francia continues to hit Kapinski.
Aiden then moves toward Francia. As Aiden begins hitting Francia,
Mucher intervenes by jumping on Aiden’s back. Mucher and Aiden tumble
together away from Francia, ending up entangled a few feet from the driver’s
door. They continue to struggle with each other in this spot. Up until Mucher is
shot, neither he nor Aiden leaves his feet. Another member of Francia and
Mucher’s group briefly jumps in to hit Aiden a few times, but then departs.
With Mucher and Aiden preoccupied with each other, Francia who has
been separated from Kapinski by Aiden’s interference begins to back away from
the car. It is not evident whether he has been shot at this point. As Francia is
slowly backing away, Kapinski stands up out of the driver’s seat. Kapinski holds
his arms extended in Francia’s direction, consistent with aiming a gun at Francia.
-5-
Francia then hunches over, clutches at his chest, and begins to stumble, eventually
falling face down.
Kapinski then drops his arms and ducks back into the car, out of sight.
Mucher and Aiden continue to grapple near the driver’s door. A light appendage
emerges from the car, consistent with Kapinski sticking his arm out over the
driver’s side door. Then Mucher falls to the ground. Aiden quickly backs away
from him, and Kapinski closes the car door and drives away.
By the time Detective Juarez finished reviewing the video footage, it was
after 3:57 A.M. She next made contact with the families of the victims, and then
returned to her office. There, she was able to access certain databases and verify
information regarding Kapinski, including his name, known aliases, and his
vehicle’s registration details. Only after confirming these, did Detective Juarez
draft an initial arrest warrant affidavit for Kapinski’s arrest for murder. The
initial warrant was approved by an assistant district attorney and then approved by
a judge. 3
In the affidavit accompanying the warrant application, Detective Juarez
described the crime scene generally and relayed information gleaned from the
3
Sometime after 4:36 P.M. on the same day, Detective Juarez realized that
the initial arrest warrant erroneously listed a single count of murder, so she
drafted an amended arrest warrant to include two counts of murder, which was
similarly approved.
-6-
eyewitness interviews. This included certain information consistent with
Kapinski acting in self-defense or defense of others. For example, the affidavit
states that Molt saw Francia approach Kapinski, curse at him, and punch him. It
further details how an “unknown male,” presumably Aiden, began fighting with
Francia, and that Mucher “jumped into the fight to help [Francia].” App. at 40.
But the affidavit omits any mention of the church’s security cameras. It
does not state that Detective Juarez obtained or viewed the footage, nor does it
contain any information indicative of self-defense from the security cameras not
otherwise conveyed by the eyewitness statements.
Kapinski was arrested pursuant to the warrant and stood trial for Francia
and Mucher’s murder. In the course of these proceedings, the jury viewed the
video surveillance footage and ultimately acquitted Kapinski on the basis of self-
defense.
Kapinski subsequently brought the instant action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983against Detective Juarez and the City of Albuquerque alleging (1) false arrest and
imprisonment, and (2) malicious prosecution. He also brought a state law claim
for negligent training and supervision under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act
against the City. All of Kapinski’s federal claims depend on his argument that
Detective Juarez unconstitutionally omitted exculpatory evidence from her
warrant affidavit namely the video footage, which Kapinski contends establishes
-7-
he acted in self-defense. In response, Detective Juarez moved for summary
judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, arguing that omitting the video
footage did not transgress any clearly established law. The City of Albuquerque
also moved for summary judgment on Kapinski’s state law claim.
The district court granted Detective Juarez’s motion. It held Kapinski had
neither shown a constitutional violation, nor, assuming Detective Juarez’s conduct
violated the Fourth Amendment, that such a violation was clearly established at
the time. The district court declined to exercise jurisdiction over the state law
claim against the City of Albuquerque.
II. Analysis
Kapinski contends the district court erred in granting qualified immunity,
arguing Detective Juarez’s omission of the video evidence sufficiently tainted the
arrest warrant to negate probable cause, making the arrest unconstitutional.
We review the grant of summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds
de novo. Puller v. Baca, 781 F.3d 1190, 1196 (10th Cir. 2015); Hobbs ex rel.
Hobbs v. Zenderman, 579 F.3d 1171, 1179 (10th Cir. 2009). Generally, summary
judgment is warranted where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and
the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
“When applying this standard, we view the evidence and draw reasonable
-8-
inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Fowler
v. United States, 647 F.3d 1232, 1237 (10th Cir. 2011).
But our “review of summary judgment orders in the qualified immunity
context differs from that applicable to . . . other summary judgment decisions.”
Thomson v. Salt Lake Cty., 584 F.3d 1304, 1312 (10th Cir. 2009). Qualified
immunity is intended to give officials “breathing room to make reasonable but
mistaken judgments.” Stanton v. Sims, 571 U.S. 3, 6 (2013). It creates a
framework intended to provide defendants with an ability to end suits early in
litigation so that they, as public employees, may continue to go about their
official business without the persistent threat of defending themselves in court.
See Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 200 01 (2001) (noting qualified immunity
provides “immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability; and . . . it is
effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial”).
Thus, where a defendant asserts qualified immunity at the summary
judgment stage, “the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that: (1) the defendant
violated a constitutional right, and (2) the constitutional right was clearly
established.” Koch v. City of Del City, 660 F.3d 1228, 1238 (10th Cir. 2011).
“If, and only if, the plaintiff meets this two-part test does a defendant then bear
the traditional burden of the movant for summary judgment.” Id.-9-
A. Constitutional Violation
Kapinski asserts a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights under the
doctrine established by Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978). In Franks, the
Supreme Court held that affiants seeking arrest warrants violate the constitution
when they knowingly, or with reckless disregard for the truth, include false
statements in a supporting affidavit or omit information which, if included, would
prevent the warrant from lawfully issuing. Id. at 171; see also Puller, 781 F.3d at
1197. Kapinski does not allege Detective Juarez acted knowingly or deliberately.
Nor does he claim her affidavit contained any false statements. Instead, he rests
his constitutional claim on the allegation that Detective Juarez recklessly omitted
exculpatory information from her affidavit which, if included, would have vitiated
probable cause. Aplt. Br. at 5 (describing his claim as involving “the reckless
omission of critical exculpatory facts from a warrant affidavit”); Id. at 20
(“Kapinski has brought an omission of critical information claim.”).
Such a Franks claim has two components. First, Kapinski must show the
omitted information was “material” in that its inclusion would have vitiated
probable cause for issuing the warrant. United States v. Herrera, 782 F.3d 571,
575 (10th Cir. 2015); Stonecipher v. Valles, 759 F.3d 1134, 1142 (10th Cir. 2014)
(noting plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing a Franks violation in the § 1983
context). Second, he must demonstrate Detective Juarez acted with the requisite
-10-
mental state recklessness in omitting the information. Beard v. City of
Northglenn, 24 F.3d 110, 116 (10th Cir. 1994). Kapinski fails to meet his burden
with respect to either element.
1. Materiality
In addressing the materiality of the omitted information, we look to see
whether a warrant would issue in a “but-for world where the attesting officer
faithfully represented the facts.” Herrera, 782 F.3d at 575. We make this
assessment by “(1) removing any false information from the affidavit, (2)
including any omitted material information, and then (3) inquiring whether the
modified affidavit establishes [or negates] probable cause for the warrant.”
Puller, 781 F.3d at 1197.
Because Kapinski does not allege any explicit misrepresentations, we begin
with the second Puller step adding the omitted information into the warrant
affidavit. This raises the question of what precisely to include. Kapinski urges us
to adopt his interpretation of the video footage as the omitted “facts.”
Specifically, he argues we must construe the video footage as showing (1) that
Francia never stopped trying to attack Kapinski and was still actively attacking
him when Kapinski shot him; (2) that Mucher was holding Aiden in a “choke
hold” to prevent him from intervening further to protect Kapinski; (3) that
Mucher continued to hold Aiden, approached Kapinski aggressively, and pushed
-11-
the car door forcefully into Kapinski’s body, knocking him back down to the car;
and (4) that Kapinski shot Mucher after falling back down into the car because
Mucher had attacked him and because he had a reasonable basis to fear more
attacks from Mucher. Aplt. Br. at 10.
Kapinski contends that this characterization of the video is justified
because under the summary judgment standard we must view the facts in the light
most favorable to Kapinski and these statements are not “blatantly contradicted by
the record.” Id. at 11. Thus, he argues we must assume Detective Juarez “knew”
these facts and omitted them from the warrant affidavit. Id. at 29 (“Plaintiff
contends . . . that a jury could find that Detective Juarez knew those facts from
having undisputedly watched the surveillance video [and] that she omitted those
facts from her warrant affidavit.”). In essence, Kapinski’s argument is that
because a reasonable juror could view the video, accept Kapinski’s
characterization of the facts, and therefore conclude probable cause is lacking, the
materiality determination must be a question of fact for a jury.
We disagree. The Supreme Court has already rejected this approach in the
context of civil rights claims reliant on probable cause determinations. For
example, in Hunter v. Bryant, the Court considered whether a Bivens suit alleging
federal officers arrested plaintiff without probable cause in violation of his Fourth
Amendment rights could survive the officers’ summary judgment motion seeking
-12-
qualified immunity. 502 U.S. 224 (1991). The Ninth Circuit had held that the
officers were not entitled to summary judgment, stating, “whether a reasonable
officer could have believed he had probable cause is a question for the trier of
fact, and summary judgment . . . is proper only if there is only one reasonable
conclusion a jury could reach.” See Bryant v. U.S. Treasury Dep’t, 903 F.2d 717,
721 (9th Cir. 1990). The Supreme Court rejected this rationale as inconsistent
with qualified immunity principles designed to protect officers who make
reasonable but mistaken probable cause determinations from the burden of going
to trial. Hunter, 502 U.S. at 227 (emphasizing the “importance of resolving
immunity questions at the earliest possible stage”).
The Court clarified that the Ninth Circuit’s statement which mirrors
Kapinski’s argument here was flawed for two reasons: (1) “it routinely places
the question of immunity in the hands of the jury”; and (2) “the court should ask
whether the agents acted reasonably under settled law in the circumstances, not
whether another reasonable, or more reasonable, interpretation of the events can
be constructed . . . years after the fact.” Id. at 228. Consistent with Hunter, our
precedents confirm that where a § 1983 claim premises liability on an alleged
Franks violation, courts may decide the probable cause question at the summary
judgment stage. See Puller, 781 F.3d at 1197 98; Stonecipher, 759 F.3d at 1142.
And indeed, they may do so without first characterizing ambiguous omitted
-13-
material in plaintiff’s favor. See Puller, 781 F.3d at 1197 98 (holding probable
cause existed without first characterizing an omitted “ambiguous statement” in
plaintiff’s favor).
Thus, we decline Kapinski’s invitation to treat his characterization of the
video as the omitted material. Instead, the more appropriate approach is to simply
assume that Detective Juarez included the video footage with all of its
uncertainties and ambiguities as an attachment to the warrant affidavit.
Viewing the amended warrant application in this way, we conclude that it
supports probable cause for Kapinski’s arrest and prosecution. Probable cause is
not a precise quantum of evidence it does not, for example, require the suspect
to be more likely guilty than not. Stonecipher, 759 F.3d at 1141. Instead, the
question is whether “a substantial probability existed that the suspect committed
the crime, requiring something more than a bare suspicion.” Kerns v. Bader, 663
F.3d 1173, 1188 (10th Cir. 2011). The fact that “the suspect is later acquitted of
the offense for which he is arrested is irrelevant” to this inquiry. Michigan v.
DeFillippo, 443 U.S. 31, 36 (1979).
Here, the eyewitness reports and video footage provide a substantial
probability that Kapinski murdered Mucher and Francia. With respect to Francia,
Kapinski is correct that the evidence shows Kapinski was not the first aggressor.
The evidence depicts Francia initiating the interaction, combatively addressing
-14-
Kapinski, and throwing the first punch. Critically, however, the video footage
shows that after Kapinski falls back into the driver’s seat, Francia begins backing
away from the car. We are unable to know precisely when Kapinski shot Francia,
but Kapinski does not reappear and raise his arms towards Francia in a manner
consistent with shooting him until after Francia is already moving away from
Kapinski and the vehicle.
Although a jury could, reasonably, conclude that Kapinski was acting in
self-defense, we find the evidence also establishes probable cause. That is, there
is a substantial probability that, at the time Kapinski shot Francia, there was no
“appearance of immediate danger of death or great bodily harm” to Kapinski.
N.M.R.A., CR UJI 14-5171 (defining elements of self-defense). 4 Moreover, a
substantial probability existed that Kapinski lacked the requisite fear at this time.
See id. (stating that to justify homicide the defendant must have been “put in fear
by the apparent danger of immediate death or great bodily harm” and acted out of
that fear). Thus, an objective viewing of the video does not negate probable
cause.
4
New Mexico’s Uniform Jury Instructions define “great bodily harm” as
“an injury to a person which [creates a high probability of death], [or] [results in
serious disfigurement] [or] [results in loss of any member or organ of the body]
[or] [results in permanent or prolonged impairment of the use of any member or
organ of the body].” N.M.R.A., CR UJI 14-131.
-15-
The evidence with respect to Mucher is even clearer. Kapinski argues that
immediately before being shot, Mucher was holding Aiden in a “choke hold”
while he continued to “approach[] [Kapinski] aggressively” and “attack” Kapinski
by pushing the car door forcefully into him. Aplt. Br. at 10. Similar to the
district court, we find this summary supported only tenuously, if at all, by the
video footage. The video does show Mucher jump on Aiden’s back, likely
wrapping his arm around Aiden’s neck. But then the two shift, and both remain
on their feet, struggling with each other. We agree with the district court that
“the video definitively does not show [Mucher] choking a passive and defenseless
Aiden.” App. at 112.
Nor does it show Mucher attacking Kapinski by shoving the door into him.
Due to the lack of contrast between Mucher’s shirt, the pavement, and the car
door, there is no indication that Mucher touched the door or shoved it into
Kapinski. Instead, the video shows Kapinski shooting Mucher while he was
struggling in close quarters with Aiden, without providing much detail on the
intensity of the fight or whether Mucher was aggressive at all towards Kapinski.
This establishes probable cause that Kapinski murdered Mucher, as it is far from
evident from the video footage that either Aiden or Kapinski faced “immediate
danger of death or great bodily harm” from Mucher or acted out of any such fear.
See N.M.R.A., CR UJI 14-5171, 14-5172.
-16-
In light of these facts and the permissible nature of the probable cause
inquiry, we conclude that the amended warrant supported probable cause,
rendering the omitted video footage immaterial.
2. Recklessness
Kapinski similarly fails to carry his burden with respect to Detective
Juarez’s state of mind. See Franks, 438 U.S. at 171; Stonecipher, 759 F.3d at
1142 (holding the plaintiff must make “a substantial showing of . . . reckless
disregard for truth”).
To establish recklessness, “there must exist evidence that the officer in fact
entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his allegations.” Stonecipher, 759
F.3d at 1142. A reviewing judge may infer recklessness from “circumstances
evincing obvious reasons to doubt the veracity of the allegations.” Beard, 24
F.3d at 116. But this is not a mandatory or automatic inference. Id.; see also
United States v. Clark, 935 F.3d 558, 566 (7th Cir. 2019) (holding courts need not
infer recklessness “from the fact that an officer omitted known and substantial
adverse information from a search warrant affidavit”).
Here the record lacks direct evidence of Detective Juarez’s recklessness
and fails to support any such inference. Kapinski’s sole contention with respect
to Detective Juarez’s culpable mental state is that the facts here speak for
themselves. Aplt. Reply at 20 (“[T]he nature of the facts themselves is prima
-17-
facie evidence of reckless disregard.”). As we have recognized in other cases, the
egregiousness of an omission may, in some circumstances, lead to an inference of
recklessness. See DeLoach v. Bevers, 922 F.2d 618 (10th Cir. 1990)
(“Recklessness may be inferred from omission of facts which are ‘clearly critical’
to a finding of probable cause.”). But here, Kapinski’s conclusory argument is
insufficient. See Beard, 24 F.3d at 116 (rejecting an inference of recklessness
where “the facts . . . present no obvious basis on which to build a case of
recklessness by inference”).
Just as in Beard, the facts present no basis to conclude Detective Juarez
acted recklessly in omitting the video footage. Indeed, the fact that Detective
Juarez included evidence militating in favor of self-defense in the affidavit
negates any such inference. The affidavit recounts Molt’s statement describing
how Francia sought out Kapinski, cursed at him aggressively, and threw the first
punch in the altercation. Such inclusions are inconsistent with the premise that
Detective Juarez was recklessly indifferent to evidence suggesting Kapinski acted
in self-defense.
Nor can Kapinski establish recklessness by arguing that “any reasonable
person would have known [the surveillance footage] was the kind of thing the
judge would wish to know.” Aplt. Br. at 21. Critically, the video footage does
not materially differ from the eyewitness accounts included in the affidavit.
-18-
Having relayed that information, Detective Juarez put the reviewing assistant
district attorney and judge on notice that Kapinski may not have been the first
aggressor in the encounter. While the video footage could be portrayed as
representing additional evidence of self-defense, such a reading is far from the
sole interpretation and in many ways the less natural one. In short, the video
footage fails to constitute the type of self-evidently “clearly critical” information,
omission of which justifies an inference of recklessness. Compare DeLoach, 922
F.2d at 622 23 (finding sufficient evidence to support jury’s recklessness
determination where officer included numerous affirmative misstatements that
contradicted interview transcripts and notes, omitted exculpatory expert medical
testimony, and made statements indicative of intentional or reckless conduct on
cross-examination at trial).
Perhaps Detective Juarez’s affidavit would have been more complete had
she, out of an abundance of caution, included the video footage in her affidavit.
But not every failure to perform police investigations in a perfectly thorough
manner renders them constitutionally infirm. See Beard, 24 F.3d at 116(“[F]ailure to investigate a matter fully, to exhaust every possible lead, interview
all potential witnesses, and accumulate overwhelming corroborative evidence
rarely suggests a knowing or reckless disregard for the truth.”). Here, given the
largely consistent nature of the video footage with the eyewitness accounts and
-19-
the fact that Detective Juarez viewed the footage in the early-morning hours of an
all-night murder investigation, we are unable to conclude that omitting the video
footage constitutes anything beyond mere negligence. Id. (rejecting inference of
recklessness where the record provided “no grounds for believing that the mistake
was the result of any invidious animus”); see also Puller, 781 F.3d at 1197
(rejecting Franks claim where there was nothing but “conclusory allegations” that
the officer “intentionally or recklessly omitted” the information at issue); Taylor
v. Meacham, 82 F.3d 1556, 1560 63 (10th Cir. 1996) (concluding that an officer
did not violate the Fourth Amendment because the plaintiff failed to provide any
evidence showing the officer omitted any facts knowingly or with reckless
disregard for the truth). 5
We thus reject Kapinski’s alleged constitutional claim. Because he fails to
show the materiality of the omitted video footage and that Detective Juarez acted
out of a reckless disregard for the truth, Kapinski cannot establish a Fourth
Amendment infraction under Franks.
B. Clearly Established
Kapinski also fails to show his alleged Fourth Amendment violation was
5
Although not relevant to our ultimate conclusion, we also note that the
government proceeded to obtain an indictment and prosecute the case on the same
basis as the arrest affidavit murder despite the presence of the video footage.
-20-
clearly established. 6 A constitutional right is clearly established when “‘the
contours of [the] right are sufficiently clear’ that every ‘reasonable official would
have understood that what he is doing violates that right.’” Ashcroft v. al-Kidd,
563 U.S. 731, 741 (2011) (quoting Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640
(1987)). As the Supreme Court often reiterates, courts must not define what is
clearly established at a high level of generality. Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305,
308 (2015) (noting that “specificity is especially important in the Fourth
Amendment context”). Although plaintiffs need not cite a case with identical
facts to demonstrate a clearly established right, existing precedent “must []
place[] the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate.” Ashcroft, 563
U.S. at 741.
Kapinski argues the clearly established prong is satisfied by alleging
“critical information” was omitted from Detective Juarez’s affidavit. Aplt. Br. at
20. Under this theory, the criticality of the omitted information need not be
proven by reference to precedent; it is enough that the alleged omissions are the
6
Sometimes we assess this prong of the qualified immunity inquiry by
asking whether there was “arguable probable cause” for the challenged conduct.
See Stonecipher, 759 F.3d at 1141; Kaufman v. Higgs, 697 F.3d 1297, 1300 (10th
Cir. 2012). “Arguable probable cause is another way of saying that the officers’
conclusions rest on an objectively reasonable, even if mistaken, belief that
probable cause exists.” Stonecipher, 759 F.3d at 1141. Arguable probable cause
is sufficient to avoid liability because “[e]ven law enforcement officials who
‘reasonably but mistakenly conclude that probable cause is present’ are entitled to
immunity.” Hunter, 502 U.S. at 227. We hold arguable probable cause exists
here for the same reasons probable exists, as outlined above.
-21-
type of information that “any reasonable person would have known . . . was the
kind of thing the judge would wish to know.” Id. at 25 (quoting Stonecipher, 759
F.3d at 1142). But this standard finds no support in our precedent, and its
application fails to comport with the notion that “qualified immunity protects all
but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” Mullenix,
136 S. Ct. at 308.
As we said in Harte v. Board of Commissioners, alleged reckless omissions
in warrant affidavits require courts to examine existing law with a high degree of
specificity. 864 F.3d 1154, 1202 (10th Cir. 2017) (noting specificity required
because “law enforcement officers can have difficulty determining ‘how the
relevant legal doctrine . . . will apply to the factual situation the officer
confronts’” (quoting Mullenix, 136 S. Ct. at 308)). 7 And, importantly, a critical
distinction exists between deliberate falsehoods and reckless omissions when
assessing whether a putative Franks violation is clearly established. See id. at
1202. Where intentional misstatements are concerned, our precedent clearly
establishes that lying in a warrant affidavit is unconstitutional. Pierce v.
Gilchrist, 359 F.3d 1279, 1298 99 (10th Cir. 2004). Because there is “little
ambiguity as to what kind of conduct constitutes lying,” this general principle
suffices to place the question beyond constitutional debate and put reasonable law
7
Harte was decided by a three-judge panel with each judge writing
separately, but the panel agreed on the applicable legal framework.
-22-
enforcement officers on notice, even in the absence of factually analogous
precedent. Harte, 864 F.3d at 1202.
But where reckless omissions are alleged, significant ambiguity exists
around how the law applies to a particular factual situation. See Saucier, 533
U.S. at 205 (“It is sometimes difficult for an officer to determine how the relevant
legal doctrine . . . will apply to the factual situation.”). That is, “when
determining whether an officer has recklessly disregarded the truth in a warrant
application, the result depends very much on the facts of each case.” Harte, 864
F.3d at 1202 (quoting Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194, 201 (2004)). Thus,
similar to excessive force claims, the context-dependent nature of Kapinski’s
reckless omission claim necessitates a factually analogous precedent to overcome
the clearly established prong of qualified immunity. Id. (“[Plaintiffs] must
therefore identify a case where an officer acting under similar circumstances . . .
was held to have violated the Fourth Amendment.”).
Kapinski fails to put forward any such precedent. Harte provides no
support because there we held that only a theory of liability premised on an
intentional misrepresentation in a warrant affidavit was clearly established. Id. at
1158 (noting that on remand the plaintiffs’ Franks claim was “limited to their
theory that one or more of the . . . defendants lied” in the warrant affidavit).
-23-
And Stonecipher does no more to support Kapinski’s claim. Not only is
that case factually distinguishable, but there we found no violation of clearly
established law. In Stonecipher, federal agents investigating the Stoneciphers for
illegally dealing guns and explosives learned that the husband had pleaded guilty
to domestic assault in Missouri. 759 F.3d at 1139. Believing that this constituted
a conviction under Missouri law, which in turn would have made it a crime for
the husband to possess and sell firearms under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9), the officers
filed a search-warrant affidavit. But, as it turned out, the husband had received
only a suspended sentence for the domestic assault, which did not constitute a
conviction under Missouri law. The officers omitted the suspended sentence
information from the warrant affidavit, giving rise to the subsequent Bivens suit
based on a reckless omission theory. We held the agents were entitled to
qualified immunity because they acted objectively reasonably under arguable
probable cause. This ruling renders Stonecipher of little use to Kapinski’s theory
that Detective Juarez’s omissions violated clearly established law.
Kapinski also points to DeLoach v. Bevers, 922 F.2d 618 (10th Cir. 1990).
There, in a post-trial proceeding, we affirmed the jury verdict against a police
officer for, among other things, submitting an “intentionally false and misleading
affidavit” that led to the arrest of a child’s caretaker on murder charges after the
child’s death. Id. at 619. Unlike here, the warrant affidavit in DeLoach
-24-
contained multiple false statements that exaggerated the caretaker’s guilt, which
were directly contradicted by the officer’s investigatory notes and the transcripts
of interviews. In addition to these misstatements, the officer omitted expert
medical opinions exonerating the caretaker. Id. at 622. After considering both
the material misstatements and the omitted information, we held the district court
was justified in submitting the question of probable cause to the jury.
DeLoach, at most, stands for the proposition that where inculpatory
misstatements are included and exculpatory expert medical opinion are excluded
from a warrant affidavit, officers may not be entitled to immunity. But DeLoach
fails to put officers in Detective Juarez’s position on notice that all equivocally
exculpatory video footage must be included in a warrant affidavit. Indeed, we
reiterated in that case that “not all evidence known to the officer need be included
in every affidavit used to secure an arrest warrant.” Id. at 622 23. Thus, to
expand DeLoach to capture this more general principle would run counter to the
specificity required and the purposes of qualified immunity.
Finally, Pierce similarly fails to put a reasonable officer in Detective
Juarez’s position on notice of the allegedly unconstitutional nature of her conduct.
359 F.3d 1279 (10th Cir. 2004). In Pierce, we considered an appeal by
defendants, a state prosecutor and forensic analyst, from the district court’s denial
of their motion to dismiss Pierce’s § 1983 claims. The gravamen of Pierce’s
-25-
complaint concerned the fabrication of inculpatory evidence and the disregarding
of exculpatory evidence specifically concerning forensic test results for hair and
blood samples which resulted in Pierce’s arrest and imprisonment for a rape he
did not commit. 8
In considering whether his alleged constitutional violation was clearly
established, we held “[n]o one could doubt that the prohibition on falsification or
omission of evidence, knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth, was
firmly established as of 1986.” Id. at 1298. Although Pierce’s allegations
centered on the affirmative falsification of evidence, the court considered how the
same principles applied to reckless omissions in warrant affidavits, accepting that
they did. Id. Pierce thus puts the constitutionality of certain conduct beyond
debate, but it is limited to its factual context. For example, under Pierce, an
officer will lack immunity for omitting forensic hair and blood tests from an
arrest warrant where those tests exculpate the subject of the warrant.
But applied here, Pierce is too factually distinct to put reasonable officers
in Detective Juarez’s position on notice. Pierce does not suggest that ambiguous
evidence must be included if one interpretation of that evidence may cast doubt
on a suspect’s guilt. To the contrary, Pierce concerned the affirmative
falsification of forensic hair analysis and the disregarding of blood analysis
8
After spending fifteen years in prison, Pierce’s conviction was vacated on
the basis of DNA evidence.
-26-
which, if considered, would have eliminated Pierce from suspicion. Id. at 1282.
The video evidence at issue here presents no analogue to this cocktail of
deliberate fabrication and manipulation. Accordingly, we have little trouble
concluding a reasonable officer in Detective Juarez’s position would not take
Pierce as guiding or clarifying with respect to whether to include the footage in
her warrant affidavit. That case thus fails to provide “fair notice that the
described conduct was unconstitutional.” Id. at 1298.
Having put forward no precedent establishing that reasonable officers in
Detective Juarez’s position would have fair notice their conduct violated the
Constitution, Kapinski fails to demonstrate the clearly established nature of his
alleged infraction. Detective Juarez is accordingly entitled to immunity.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, we AFFIRM the district court’s grant of
summary judgment to Detective Juarez and the City of Albuquerque.
-27-