Thursday, August 9, 2012

Tenth Circuit Armijo v. Perales 11-2098

Decision here.

   Armijo was the Chief of Police in Columbus, NM.  He oversaw the purchase of six guns, four of which were purchased by the city and two of which were purchased by Armijo (for personal use or as gifts).  Apparently, there was some confusion over a bid sheet listing all six guns while the city's final purchase was only four of the six, but there was no question that the city paid for four guns and received four guns.

   Investigators with the local district attorney's office used this information to apply for a warrant to search Armijo's house (for drugs, financial records, and any stolen or altered guns), as well as a warrant for his arrest (for theft or embezzlement of two guns).  I don't know why they listed drugs and all that nonsense on the warrant, the affidavit didn't conatin any information to suggest that they would find any.

   Surprisingly, the warrants were issued.  They searched Armijo's house, where they found the two extra guns (they seized another gun, too, which wasn't apparently stolen or altered).  Then they arrested Armijo.  Charges were subsequently dismissed, and Armijo brought a §1983 suit against the investigators, arguing that the search and arrest violated his Fourth Amendment rights.  He also argued that the investigation had actually been a retaliation for a report he made about the mayor committing a battery.  The investigators moved to invoke qualified immunity, and the district court denied their motion.  The investigators appealed.

   The Tenth Circuit observed that there was nothing in the affidavits which even remotely resembled probable cause.  The phrase the court kept throwing around in this decision to describe probable cause was  "a substantial probability that a crime has been committed and that a specific individual committed the crime."  Also: "Probable cause is a common-sense standard that requires facts sufficient to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has been or is being committed."  The best the affidavit could allege was "confusion," which is a far cry from "substantial probability."

   Given that the affidavit was so obviously flawed, the Tenth agreed with the district court that the warrants violated Armijo's Fourth Amendment rights.  Just as importantly, the court held that a reasonable officer would have known that the warrants violated Armijo's rights, because the information used to obtain the warrants was so clearly deficient.  And it's pretty clearly established that you can't apply for a warrant that doesn't even allege a crime, and use that to search for whatever random crap you think you might find and then arrest someone for whatever you can make up.  Accordingly, the Court affirmed the denial of qualified immunity.

   So there you go; even though applying for warrants is a pretty good shield against liability, it's not an absolute one.  In cases where you know (or really ought to know) that you don't have probable cause, getting a warrant doesn't make your actions any more legal.

2 comments:

  1. Right on, Court!
    but what if it's your opinion?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Then I'm sure there's some department precedent to cover that....

      Actually, I didn't include it in my summary (since it ideally shouldn't affect decision making in the field), but People v. Rhodus touches on that. It mentions rules 701 and 702 from the Colorado Rules of Evidence (governing lay opinion and expert opinion), and the decision also spells out that the police may not offer expert opinion in the guise of lay opinion without first being qualified as experts.

      In that case, the testimony was admitted (the supposedly "expert" testimony was as to whether or not people usually get rid of clothes during a foot pursuit).

      http://thehonorablecourt.blogspot.com/2012/08/colorado-court-of-appeals-people-v_9316.html#comment-form

      Delete