Hernandez-Cuevas v. Taylor, 1st Cir. (2013)

7/26/2019 Hernandez-Cuevas v. Taylor, 1st Cir. (2013)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hernandez-cuevas-v-taylor-1st-cir-2013 1/29

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 12- 1053

CARLOS HERNANDEZ- CUEVAS,

Pl ai nt i f f , Appel l ee,

v.

WI LLI AM TAYLOR and STEVEN M. MARTZ,

Def endant s, Appel l ant s.

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT

FOR THE DI STRI CT OF PUERTO RI CO

[ Hon. Ai da M. Del gado- Col ón, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Thompson, St ahl , and Li pez, Ci r cui t J udges.

St uar t F. Del er y, Assi st ant At t or ney Gener al , wi t h whom RosaE. Rodr i guez- Vel ez, Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, Bar bar a L. Her wi g, andLowel l V. St ur gi l l , J r . wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ant s.

J ose F. Quetgl as J or dan, wi t h whom Pedr o R. Vazquez and t heQuet gl as Law Of f i ces wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ee.

J ul y 17, 2013



LIPEZ, Circuit Judge. Thi s case r equi r es us t o deci de

f or t he f i r st t i me whet her an i ndi vi dual who al l eges t hat t he

unl awf ul conduct of l aw enf or cement of f i cer s caused hi mt o be hel d

f or t hr ee mont hs i n pr et r i al det ent i on wi t hout pr obabl e cause

st at es a Four t h Amendment cl ai mact i onabl e thr ough a Bi vens sui t . 1

Of t en cal l ed a "Four t h Amendment mal i ci ous prosecut i on" cl ai m, t he

exi st ence and cont our s of such a cl ai m ar e t he subj ect of

consi der abl e di scor d among t he Cour t s of Appeal s. Af t er r evi ewi ng

t he r el evant case l aw, we concl ude t hat an i ndi vi dual ' s Four t h

Amendment r i ght t o be f r ee f r om sei zure but upon pr obabl e cause

cont i nues t hr ough t he pr et r i al per i od, 2 and t hat , i n cer t ai n

ci r cumst ances, i nj ur ed par t i es can vi ndi cat e t hat r i ght t hr ough a

§ 1983 or Bi vens act i on. Fur t hermore, because we agr ee wi t h t he

di st r i ct cour t t hat Her nandez- Cuevas has pl eaded f act s whi ch, i f

1 A Bi vens act i on i s a ci vi l act i on br ought agai nst agent s of t he Uni t ed St at es, der i vi ng i t s name f r om Bi vens v. Si x UnknownNamed Agent s of t he Federal Bur eau of Narcot i cs, 403 U. S. 388( 1971) . "Thi s i mpl i ed cause of act i on i s t he f eder al anal og t o§ 1983 sui t s agai nst st at e of f i ci al s . " Sot o- Tor r es v. Fr at i cel l i ,654 F. 3d 153, 158 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) .

2 The Four t h Amendment t o t he Uni t ed St ates Const i t ut i onstates:

The r i ght of t he peopl e t o be secur e i n t hei r per sons,houses, paper s, and ef f ect s, agai nst unr easonabl e

sear ches and sei zur es, shal l not be vi ol at ed, and noWar r ant s shal l i ssue, but upon pr obabl e cause, suppor t edby Oat h or af f i r mat i on, and par t i cul ar l y descr i bi ng t hepl ace t o be sear ched, and t he per sons or t hi ngs t o besei zed.

U. S. Const . amend. I V.

-2-



t r ue, woul d be suf f i ci ent t o est abl i sh t hat Tayl or and Mar t z

vi ol at ed hi s Four t h Amendment r i ght s, we af f i r m t he deni al of

qual i f i ed i mmuni t y and r emand f or f ur t her pr oceedi ngs.

I.

A. Factual Background

The f ol l owi ng f act s ar e drawn f r om t he compl ai nt and

document s i ncorporated i nt o t he compl ai nt .

I n 2004, pl ai nt i f f Car l os Her nandez- Cuevas was 40 year s

ol d and l i vi ng i n a r ent ed r oomi n a mul t i - uni t bui l di ng l ocat ed at

1655 Sant a Ana St r eet i n Carol i na, Puert o Ri co. Hernandez- Cuevas

i s dar k- ski nned, appr oxi mat el y 5' 10" t al l , and t hi n, wei ghi ng about

150 pounds.

That same year , a j oi nt f eder al - Commonweal t h t ask f or ce

consi st i ng of FBI agent s and l ocal pol i ce of f i cer s opened a speci al

i nvest i gat i on t ar get i ng a si gni f i cant dr ug and money l aunder i ng

conspi r acy oper at i ng i n Car ol i na. The t ask f or ce empl oyed at l east

t wo conf i dent i al i nf or mant s, r ef er r ed t o i n t he compl ai nt as " UI - 1"

and "UI - 2. " Worki ng undercover , UI - 1 and UI - 2 ar r anged a meet i ng

on J ul y 20, 2004 wi t h several members of t he money l aunder i ng

conspi r acy i n t he par ki ng l ot of t he Puebl o Super mar ket on Rout e

187 i n Car ol i na, "wher e a cour i er act i ng under t he di r ect i on of

such co- conspi r at or s was t o del i ver pr oceeds of dr ug sal es t o UI -

1. "

The t ask f or ce agent s set up a survei l l ance uni t t o

-3-



observe t hi s t r ansact i on. Accor di ng t o a cont empor aneous

sur vei l l ance r epor t , t he agent s at t he scene saw a whi t e and si l ver

Mi t subi shi Mont ero wi t h l i cense pl ate number DMV- 656 ent er t he

par ki ng l ot and par k next t o UI - 1' s car . The dr i ver of t he

Mont er o, r ef er r ed t o i n t he compl ai nt as "UNSUB #1, " r ol l ed down

hi s wi ndow and spoke wi t h UI - 1. Bot h car s t hen l ef t t he par ki ng

l ot .

Some t i me l at er , UI - 1 r et ur ned t o t he par ki ng l ot , t hi s

t i me tai l ed by a whi t e J eep Cherokee wi t h l i cense pl ate number FDA-

680. Two unknown mal es wer e i nsi de the J eep: t he dr i ver , r ef er r ed

t o i n t he compl ai nt as "UNSUB #2, " and a passenger , r ef err ed t o as

"UNSUB #3. " I n t hei r sur vei l l ance r epor t , t he FBI of f i cer s at t he

scene descr i bed UNSUB #3 as a "bl ack mal e, wi t h bl ack hai r , 5 f eet

and 7 i nches t al l , a heavy bui l d, and i n hi s l at e f i f t i es. "

The J eep pul l ed up al ongsi de UI - 1' s car . UNSUB #3 exi t ed

t he J eep and pl aced t wo bags cont ai ni ng $321, 956 i n cash i n t he

t r unk of UI - 1' s car . UNSUB #3 t hen r et ur ned t o t he J eep, whi ch

l ef t t he par ki ng l ot . FBI agent s f r om t he sur vei l l ance uni t

f ol l owed t he J eep, and saw t he dr i ver dr op UNSUB #3 of f on Sant a

Ana St r eet i n Carol i na. The agent s l ast obser ved UNSUB #3 wal ki ng

t owar d t he "por ch ar ea" of t he mul t i - uni t bui l di ng l ocat ed at 1655

Sant a Ana St r eet , where Hernandez- Cuevas l i ved.

Near l y a year passed, dur i ng whi ch t he FBI was unabl e t o

posi t i vel y i dent i f y UNSUB #3. " I n a r ush t o i ndi ct someone as

-4-



UNSUB #3, " Mart z, Tayl or , and UI - 1 conspi r ed t o manuf actur e

evi dence i ndi cat i ng t hat UNSUB #3 was Hernandez- Cuevas. I n

f ur t her ance of t hei r pl an, Mar t z and UI - 1 "car r i ed out a t ai nt ed

phot o i dent i f i cat i on. " On May 25, 2005, Mar t z e- mai l ed UI - 1

pi ct ur es of si x i ndi vi dual s, i ncl udi ng a phot ogr aph of Her nandez-

Cuevas. The f ol l owi ng day, U- 1 cal l ed Mar t z on t he t el ephone and

i dent i f i ed Hernandez- Cuevas as UNSUB #3, even though Hernandez-

Cuevas' s physi cal appear ance –- t al l , t hi n, and 40 year s ol d - - i s

st r i ki ngl y di f f er ent f r omt he cont empor aneous FBI r epor t descr i bi ng

UNSUB # 3 as " 5 f eet and 7 i nches t al l , a heavy bui l d, and i n hi s

l at e f i f t i es. " Despi t e t he di scr epanci es bet ween Her nandez-

Cuevas' s appear ance and t he or i gi nal sur vei l l ance descr i pt i on of

UNSUB #3, Mart z wr ote an i nt ernal FBI r eport based on UI - 1' s

i dent i f i cat i on concl udi ng that UNSUB #3 was i n f act Her nandez-

Cuevas.

Anot her t wo year s passed wi t hout f ur t her act i on i n t he

case. Fi nal l y, on November 21, 2007, Tayl or "ei t her knowi ngl y or

i n r eckl ess di sr egar d of t he t r ut h" i ncl uded t he f al se

i dent i f i cat i on of Hernandez- Cuevas as UNSUB #3 i n a warr ant

af f i davi t , at t est i ng t hat on J ul y 20, 2004, Her nandez- Cuevas had

del i ver ed $321, 956 i n dr ug pr oceeds t o UI - 1.

On t he basi s of t hese f al se st at ement s, a magi st r at e

j udge i n Puer t o Ri co i ssued a war r ant f or Her nandez- Cuevas' s

ar r est . Accor di ng t o t he compl ai nt , wi t hout Tayl or ' s st at ement s,

-5-



t he government woul d have been unabl e t o est abl i sh pr obabl e cause

t o obt ai n t he war r ant . FBI agent s ar r est ed Her nandez- Cuevas on

December 3, 2007 and br ought hi m bef ore a magi st r ate j udge t he

f ol l owi ng day. On December 6, 2007, he appear ed agai n bef ore a

magi st r at e j udge, who or der ed hi m det ai ned wi t hout bai l pendi ng

t r i al and t r ansf er r ed hi mt o a f eder al pr i son i n New J er sey, wher e

he was i ncar cer at ed f or near l y t hr ee mont hs awai t i ng f ur t her

pr oceedi ngs. On Febr uary 29, 2008, he was r el eased on hi s own

r ecogni zance f ol l owi ng a hear i ng bef or e a magi st r at e j udge i n New

J er sey; on Apr i l 18, 2008, t he Uni t ed Stat es At t or ney f or t he

Di st r i ct of New J er sey di smi ssed t he char ges agai nst Her nandez-

Cuevas.

Hernandez- Cuevas al l eges t hat he was not i n t he parki ng

l ot of t he Puebl o Supermarket on J ul y 20, 2004, and t hat he has

never been i nvol ved i n t he dr ug t r ade. He al so al l eges t hat he has

never "owned, possessed, dr i ven or t r avel ed" i n ei t her of t he car s

observed by t he FBI agent s i n t he par ki ng l ot .

B. Procedural Background

Hernandez- Cuevas f i l ed hi s compl ai nt on March 2, 2009,

al l egi ng t hat Mar t z and Tayl or ' s mi sconduct caused hi m t o be hel d

i n f eder al cust ody f or t hr ee mont hs wi t hout pr obabl e cause. 3 The

3 The or i gi nal compl ai nt was di smi ssed wi t hout pr ej udi ce f orl ack of pr oper ser vi ce on J ul y 14, 2009 and r e- f i l ed on J ul y 28,2009. The di st r i ct cour t det er mi ned t hat under Puer t o Ri co l aw,t he or i gi nal compl ai nt t ol l ed t he st at ut e of l i mi t at i ons. See P. R.Laws Ann. t i t . 31, § 5303; see al so López- Gonzál ez v. Muni ci pal i t y

-6-





( 1994) ; Cal er o- Cól on v. Bet ancour t - Lebr on, 68 F. 3d 1, 3- 4 ( 1st

Ci r . 1995) ( di scussi ng accr ual r ul es f or mal i ci ous pr osecut i on and

f al se ar r est cl ai ms brought under § 1983) .

The cour t di sagr eed, however , wi t h t he gover nment ' s

ar gument t hat t he st at ut e of l i mi t at i ons on al l pl ausi bl e Four t h

Amendment cl ai ms had r un by t he t i me Hernandez- Cuevas f i l ed hi s

compl ai nt . I nst ead, t he cour t agr eed wi t h Her nandez- Cuevas that i n

addi t i on t o al l egat i ons t hat he sust ai ned i nj ur i es f r omt he ar r est

i t sel f , t he compl ai nt al l eged t hat he sust ai ned i nj ur i es f r om t he

t hr ee mont hs t hat he was hel d i n f eder al cust ody wi t hout pr obabl e

cause. Concl udi ng t hat Hernandez- Cuevas was cor r ect t hat t he

cl osest common l aw anal ogy f or t hi s cl ai m was mal i ci ous

pr osecut i on, t he cour t al l owed hi mt o pr oceed on t hi s cl ai mbecause

mal i ci ous pr osecut i on cl ai ms accr ued at common l aw on t he day t hat

t he pr oceedi ngs t er mi nat ed i n pl ai nt i f f ' s f avor , see Wal l ace, 549

U. S. at 390, whi ch i n t hi s case occur r ed on Apr i l 18, 2008, l ess

t han a year bef ore Hernandez- Cuevas f i l ed hi s compl ai nt on March 2,

2009. 4

The def endant s t hen f i l ed a second mot i on t o di smi ss,

4 A def endant cannot f i l e an i nt er l ocut or y appeal of a

deni al of a mot i on t o di smi ss on st at ut e of l i mi t at i ons gr ounds.I nst ead, a def endant must wai t unt i l f i nal j udgment has ent er ed t oseek appel l at e r evi ew. See Gar ni er v. Rodr í guez, 506 F. 3d 22, 25( 1st Ci r . 2007) ( hol di ng t hat wher e of f i cer f i l ed i nt er l ocut or yappeal of bot h deni al of qual i f i ed i mmuni t y and deni al of mot i on t odi smi ss on st at ut e of l i mi t at i ons gr ounds, cour t of appeal s had j ur i sdi ct i on onl y over qual i f i ed i mmuni t y appeal ) .

-8-



ar gui ng, i nt er al i a, t hat Tayl or and Mar t z wer e ent i t l ed t o

qual i f i ed i mmuni t y. The cour t deni ed t he def endant s' mot i on.

Ci t i ng t he Supr eme Cour t ' s opi ni on i n Fr anks v. Del awar e, 438 U. S.

154 ( 1978) , t he cour t concl uded t hat i t had l ong been cl ear l y

est abl i shed l aw t hat t he Four t h Amendment pr ohi bi t s a pol i ce

of f i cer f r om manuf act ur i ng pr obabl e cause by knowi ngl y i ncl udi ng

f al se st at ement s i n a war r ant af f i davi t . 5

Tayl or and Mar t z t hen f i l ed t hi s i nter l ocut or y appeal

chal l engi ng t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deni al of qual i f i ed i mmuni t y.

II.

We have j ur i sdi ct i on over t hi s i nt er l ocut or y appeal

because a t r i al cour t ' s deni al of a f eder al of f i cer ' s qual i f i ed

i mmuni t y def ense i s a " f i nal deci si on wi t hi n t he meani ng of 28

U. S. C. § 1291. " Sot o- Tor r es v. Frat i cel l i , 654 F. 3d 153, 157 ( 1st

Ci r . 2011) ; see

al so Ashcr of t v. I qbal , 556 U. S. 662, 671- 72

( 2009) ; Cox v. Hai ney, 391 F. 3d 25, 29 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) ( " [ M] any of

t he benef i t s of qual i f i ed i mmuni t y ar e squander ed i f t he act i on i s

i ncor r ect l y al l owed t o pr oceed t o t r i al . ") . Our r evi ew i s de novo.

5 I n hi s opposi t i on br i ef , Her nandez- Cuevas ar gues that Mar t zand Tayl or have wai ved t hei r qual i f i ed i mmuni t y def ense becauset hey di d not ar gue bef or e t he di st r i ct cour t t hat t hey wer eent i t l ed t o qual i f i ed i mmuni t y on t he Four t h Amendment mal i ci ous

pr osecut i on cl ai m speci f i cal l y. Ther e i s no mer i t to t hi sar gument . Mar t z and Tayl or asser t ed t he af f i r mat i ve def ense of qual i f i ed i mmuni t y i n t hei r Answer t o Her nandez- Cuevas' s compl ai ntand f i l ed a mot i on t o di smi ss argui ng t hat t hey wer e ent i t l ed t oqual i f i ed i mmuni t y on Her nandez- Cuevas' s cl ai mt hat t hey "conspi r edt o mal i ci ousl y pr osecut e" hi m. Mar t z and Tayl or needed t o donot hi ng mor e t o pr eserve t hei r qual i f i ed i mmuni t y def ense.

-9-



See Ocasi o- Her nández v. For t uño- Bur set , 640 F. 3d 1, 7 ( 1st Ci r .

2011) .

I n an appeal f r om a deni al of qual i f i ed i mmuni t y, we

gener al l y pr oceed t hr ough a two- par t anal ysi s, 6 consi der i ng whether

" ( 1) t he f act s al l eged show t he def endant s' conduct vi ol at ed a

const i t ut i onal r i ght , and ( 2) t he cont our s of t hi s ri ght ar e

' cl ear l y est abl i shed' under t hen- exi st i ng l aw so that a reasonabl e

of f i cer woul d have known t hat hi s conduct was unl awf ul . " Sant ana

v. Cal der ón, 342 F. 3d 18, 23 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) . I n t hi s case,

however , Tayl or and Mar t z have decl i ned t o rai se any ar gument about

t he ' cl ear l y est abl i shed' pr ong, choosi ng i nst ead t o pur sue t hei r

ar gument t hat Her nandez- Cuevas has f ai l ed t o st at e a pl ausi bl e

Four t h Amendment cl ai m. 7 As such, we conf i ne our sel ves t o

6 Because "[ t ] he qual i f i ed i mmuni t y t est i s i dent i cal f or

cl ai ms pur sued under § 1983 and f or Bi vens- t ype sui t s, " Mar t í nez-Rodr í guez v. Guevar a, 597 F. 3d 414, 419 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) , we usecase l aw devel oped under bot h t ypes of cl ai ms i nt er changeabl y.

7 We not e t hat t he gover nment ' s deci si on t o f or f ei t t hecl ear l y est abl i shed pr ong may have been mot i vat ed by t he reasonabl econcl usi on t hat such an argument woul d be hopel ess i n any event . Though t he quest i on of whet her t he Four t h Amendment provi dessubst ant i ve pr ot ect i on dur i ng t he pr et r i al per i od i s a quest i on of f i r st i mpr essi on i n t hi s ci r cui t , i t cannot be ser i ousl y ar guedt hat an obj ect i vel y reasonabl e of f i cer i n Mar t z and Tayl or ' sposi t i on woul d have been i gnor ant of t he f act t hat f abr i cat i ng

evi dence was const i t ut i onal l y unaccept abl e. I ndeed, we havepr evi ousl y concl uded t hat i t i s "sel f - evi dent " t hat "t hose char gedwi t h uphol di ng t he l aw ar e pr ohi bi t ed f r omdel i ber at el y f abr i cat i ngevi dence and f r ami ng i ndi vi dual s f or cr i mes t hey di d not commi t . "Li mone v. Condon, 372 F. 3d 39, 44- 45 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) ( concl udi ngt hat " t he r i ght not t o be f r amed by l aw enf orcement agent s wascl ear l y est abl i shed i n 1967") .

-10-



consi der at i on of t he f i r st pr ong of t he anal ysi s, namel y, "whet her

t he f act s al l eged, vi ewed i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o t he

compl ai ni ng par t y, show t hat t he of f i cer ' s conduct vi ol at ed some

const i t ut i onal r i ght . " Li mone v. Condon, 372 F. 3d 39, 44 ( 1st Ci r .

2004) .

That i nqui r y i s mor e compl i cat ed t han usual . Nei t her

t hi s ci r cui t nor t he Supr eme Cour t has ever expl i ci t l y det er mi ned

t hat t he Four t h Amendment encompasses a mal i ci ous pr osecut i on

cl ai m. See Wal l ace, 549 U. S. at 390 n. 2 ( "We have never expl ored

t he cont our s of a Four t h Amendment mal i ci ous- pr osecut i on sui t under

§ 1983 . . . . " ) ; Har r i ngt on v. Ci t y of Nashua, 610 F. 3d 24, 30

( 1st Ci r . 2010) ( " I t r emai ns an unanswer ed quest i on whet her a

mal i ci ous pr osecut i on cl ai m i s cogni zabl e under t he Four t h

Amendment and sect i on 1983 . . . . " ) ; Moreno- Medi na v. Tol edo, 458

Fed. App' x 4, 7 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ( unpubl i shed) .

Gi ven t he unset t l ed nat ur e of t hi s quest i on, we ar e

f r ankl y baf f l ed by the gover nment ' s expl i ci t deci si on t o f or ego any

ar gument t hat t he Four t h Amendment does not encompass a mal i ci ous

pr osecut i on cl ai m. I n i t s openi ng br i ef on appeal , t he gover nment

ment i ons t he unset t l ed nat ur e of t hi s quest i on, but t hen, wi t hout

pr esent i ng any argument , deci des t o pr oceed, assumi ng, arguendo,

t hat t he Four t h Amendment encompasses a mal i ci ous pr osecut i on

cl ai m.

Despi t e t hi s omi ssi on, i t woul d be an odd exer ci se on our

-11-



par t , under t he ci r cumst ances of t hi s case, t o eval uat e t he

suf f i ci ency of t he pl eadi ngs on t he assumpt i on t hat t he under l yi ng

r i ght exi st ed. That appr oach mi ght make sense i f we f ound, as t he

gover nment ar gues, t hat t he pl eadi ngs are i nsuf f i ci ent , and t her eby

br ought t hi s case t o a cl ose. That appear s t o be t he gover nment ' s

cal cul at i on. However , i f we assumed t he r i ght exi st ed, f ound t he

pl eadi ngs suf f i ci ent , and r emanded t o t he di st r i ct cour t f or

f ur t her pr oceedi ngs, and t hen det er mi ned at a l at er st age of t he

case that t he under l yi ng r i ght di d not exi st , t he post - r emand

pr oceedi ngs woul d have been a wast e of j udi ci al r esour ces. Thus,

t o avoi d such an out come, we wi l l consi der f i r st whet her t he r i ght

Her nandez- Cuevas seeks t o vi ndi cat e exi st s at al l bef or e we

det er mi ne whet her he has pl ed f act s suf f i ci ent t o est abl i sh t hat a

const i t ut i onal vi ol at i on occur r ed. Cf . Engel v. Buchan, 710 F. 3d

698, 702 ( 7t h Ci r . 2013) ( "The i ssue of qual i f i ed i mmuni t y

necessar i l y i ncl udes t he pr edi cat e of whet her a Bi vens r emedy i s

avai l abl e i n t hi s cont ext at al l . ") .

A. Fourth Amendment Malicious Prosecution Claims

1. Legal Background

Ther e has l ong been a sense among t he cour t s t hat t he

Const i t ut i on pr ovi des some pr ot ect i on f or i ndi vi dual s who ar e

t ar get ed f or unr easonabl e, basel ess pr osecut i ons, and who, as a

r esul t , ar e det ai ned wi t hout pr obabl e cause dur i ng t he pr et r i al

per i od. Though t hi s vi ew seems t o be wi del y shar ed, t he pr eci se

-12-



const i t ut i onal sour ce and ext ent of any pr ot ect i on agai nst t hi s

t ype of har m ar e i ssues on whi ch t her e has l ong exi st ed "an

embar r assi ng di ver si t y of j udi ci al opi ni on. " Al br i ght v. Ol i ver ,

510 U. S. 266, 271 n. 4 ( 1994) ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) ( i nt er nal quot at i on

mar ks omi t t ed) ( di scussi ng t he var i et y of j udi ci al appr oaches t o

t hese cl ai ms) .

I n year s past , many cour t s, i ncl udi ng t hi s one,

r ecogni zed a subst ant i ve or pr ocedur al due pr ocess r i ght t o be f r ee

f r ommal i ci ous pr osecut i on. See, e. g. , Tor r es, 893 F. 2d at 409.

Locat i ng t he r i ght t o be f r ee f r omunr easonabl e pr et r i al det ent i on

i n t he due pr ocess guar ant ees of t he Const i t ut i on dovet ai l ed wi t h

our under st andi ng t hat t he r i ght s of an accused f ol l owi ng ar r est

and ar r ai gnment ar e gener al l y enshr i ned i n t he Fi f t h and Si xth

Amendment s.

Near l y t wo decades ago, however , t he Supr eme Cour t ' s

opi ni on i n Al br i ght v. Ol i ver , 510 U. S. 266, f i r ml y cl osed t he door

on subst ant i ve due pr ocess as a vehi cl e f or br i ngi ng such cl ai ms.

I n addi t i on, at l east a pl ur al i t y of t he J ust i ces concl uded t hat

pr ocedur al due pr ocess woul d l i kewi se r ar el y, i f ever , be an

appr opr i at e vehi cl e f or such cl ai ms. See i d. at 283- 86 ( Kennedy,

J . , concur r i ng i n t he j udgment ) ( concl udi ng t hat any procedur al due

pr ocess mal i ci ous pr osecut i on cl ai m woul d, i n most cases, be

pr ecl uded by t he Par r at t - Hudson doct r i ne) . At t he same t i me,

however , t he Cour t st r ongl y suggest ed i n di ct a t hat t he pl ai nt i f f

-13-



i n Al br i ght woul d have been mor e successf ul i f he had sought r el i ef

under t he Four t h Amendment . See i d. at 274 ( "The Fr amers

consi der ed t he mat t er of pr et r i al depr i vat i ons of l i ber t y and

dr af t ed t he Four t h Amendment t o addr ess i t . " ) .

Though conf i ned t o di ct a, t hese st at ement s about a Four t h

Amendment r i ght t o be f r ee f r om mal i ci ous pr osecut i on r esul t ed i n

a sea change i n t he l aw. Pr i or t o Al br i ght onl y a mi nor i t y of

j ur i sdi ct i ons r ecogni zed a Four t h Amendment mal i ci ous prosecut i on

cl ai m, but i t i s now t he maj or i t y r ul e. I ndeed, each of t he ei ght

Cour t s of Appeal s t o di r ect l y addr ess i n t he year s si nce Al br i ght

whether t he Four t h Amendment pr ovi des pr otect i on agai nst pr et r i al

det ent i on wi t hout pr obabl e cause has concl uded t hat i t does. See,

e. g. , Mangani el l o v. Ci t y of New Yor k, 612 F. 3d 149, 160- 61 ( 2d

Ci r . 2010) ; McKenna v. Ci t y of Phi l adel phi a, 582 F. 3d 447, 461 ( 3d

Ci r . 2009) ; Evans v. Chal mer s, 703 F. 3d 636, 647 ( 4t h Ci r . 2012) ;

Cast el l ano v. Fragozo, 352 F. 3d 939 ( 5t h Ci r . 2003) ( en banc) ;

Sykes v. Ander son, 625 F. 3d 294, 310 ( 6t h Ci r . 2010) ; Lassi t er v.

Ci t y of Br emer t on, 556 F. 3d 1049 ( 9t h Ci r . 2009) ; Pi er ce v.

Gi l chr i st , 359 F. 3d 1279 ( 10t h Ci r . 2004) ; Gr i der v. Ci t y of

Aubur n, 618 F. 3d 1240, 1256 (11t h Ci r . 2010) .

Though t her e i s now broad consensus among t he ci r cui t s

t hat t he Four t h Amendment r i ght t o be f r ee f r om sei zur e but upon

pr obabl e cause ext ends t hr ough t he pr et r i al per i od, t he ci r cui t s

ar e di vi ded over t he el ement s of such a cl ai m. See Pi er ce, 359

-14-



F. 3d at 1287- 90 & n. 8 ( di scussi ng ci r cui t spl i t ) ; Cast el l ano, 352

F. 3d at 949- 53 ( same) . The var yi ng appr oaches adopt ed by t he

di f f er ent Cour t s of Appeal s can be roughl y pl aced i n one of t wo

gr oups. The Four t h, Fi f t h, Si xt h, and Tent h Ci r cui t s have adopt ed

a pur el y const i t ut i onal appr oach, r equi r i ng t he pl ai nt i f f t o

demonst r ate onl y a Four t h Amendment vi ol at i on. The Second, Thi r d,

Ni nt h, and El event h Ci r cui t s, on t he ot her hand, have adopt ed a

bl ended const i t ut i onal / common l aw appr oach, r equi r i ng t he pl ai nt i f f

t o demonst r ate a Four t h Amendment vi ol at i on and al l t he el ement s of

a common l aw mal i ci ous pr osecut i on cl ai m.

Though t hese t wo approaches r ef l ect a t heor et i cal di vi de

between the ci r cui t s, t he el ement s of a Four t h Amendment mal i ci ous

pr osecut i on cl ai m under ei t her t he bl ended appr oach or t he pur el y

const i t ut i onal appr oach ar e l ar gel y i dent i cal wi t h one caveat . The

pl ai nt i f f i n a common l aw mal i ci ous pr osecut i on cl ai mmust , as t he

name i mpl i es, demonst r at e t hat t he def endant of f i cer act ed wi t h

subj ect i ve mal i ce. 8 A pl ai nt i f f al l egi ng a pur el y const i t ut i onal

Four t h Amendment cl ai m, on t he ot her hand, usual l y need est abl i sh

onl y t hat hi s sei zur e was obj ect i vel y unr easonabl e. See Sykes, 625

8 The el ement s of a common l aw mal i ci ous pr osecut i on cl ai mvar y sl i ght l y f r om st at e t o st at e, but i n gener al t hey ar e: "( 1)

t he commencement or cont i nuat i on of a cr i mi nal pr oceedi ng by thedef endant agai nst t he pl ai nt i f f ; ( 2) t he t er mi nat i on of t hepr oceedi ng i n f avor of t he accused; ( 3) t he absence of pr obabl ecause f or t he cr i mi nal pr oceedi ng; and ( 4) act ual mal i ce. " Cal er o-Col ón v. Bet ancour t - Lebr on, 68 F. 3d 1, at 3 n. 5 ( 1st Ci r . 1995) ;see al so W. Keet on, et al . , Prosser & Keet on on Law of Tor t s § 119,at 871 ( 5t h ed. 1984) .

-15-



F. 3d at 310- 11 ( " [ T]he r easonabl eness of a sei zur e under t he Four t h

Amendment shoul d be anal yzed f r oman obj ect i ve perspect i ve, whi ch,

even i n t he cont ext of mal i ci ous- pr osecut i on cl ai ms, r ender s

i r r el evant t he subj ect i ve st at e of mi nd of t he def endant [ . ] "

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) . However , as we shal l expl ai n,

t her e may be l ess t o t hi s di vi de t han f i r st appear s.

2. Our Approach

Today, we j oi n our si st er ci r cui t s i n concl udi ng t hat t he

Four t h Amendment pr otect i on agai nst sei zur e but upon pr obabl e cause

does not end when an ar r est ee becomes hel d pur suant t o l egal

pr ocess. 9 Though t he Fi f t h and Si xt h Amendment s general l y cont r ol

event s f ol l owi ng t he ar r est and ar r ai gnment of an i ndi vi dual

accused of commi t t i ng a cr i me, we are convi nced t hat an i ndi vi dual

does not l ose hi s Four t h Amendment r i ght t o be f r ee f r om

unr easonabl e sei zure when he becomes det ai ned pur suant t o j udi ci al

pr ocess. Cer t ai nl y, i n most cases, t he neut r al magi st r at e' s

9 The moment a def endant becomes hel d pur suant t o l egalpr ocess di f f ers dependi ng on whether or not t he def endant wasar r est ed pur suant t o a war r ant . I n a case wher e an i ndi vi dual i sar r est ed wi t hout a war r ant , he i s det ai ned wi t hout pr ocess unt i l ," f or exampl e, he i s bound over by a magi st r at e or ar r ai gned onchar ges. " Wal l ace v. Kato, 549 U. S. 384, 389 ( 2007) . I n mostcases, t hi s post - ar r est , pr e- pr ocess per i od can l ast onl y up t o 48hour s. See Cnt y. of Ri ver si de v. McLaughl i n, 500 U. S. 44, 56

( 1991) . Wher e an i ndi vi dual i s ar r est ed pur suant t o a j udi ci alwarr ant , however , he becomes hel d pur suant t o l egal pr ocess at t hemoment of ar r est . See Ni eves v. McSweeney, 241 F. 3d 46, 54 ( 1stCi r . 2001) ( not i ng t hat i n a mal i ci ous pr osecut i on act i on,"[ g] ener al l y, t he of f endi ng l egal pr ocess comes ei t her i n t he f or mof an ar r est war r ant . . . or a subsequent char gi ng document " ) ; seeal so W. Keet on, et al . , supr a, § 119, at 888.

-16-



det er mi nat i on t hat pr obabl e cause exi st s f or t he i ndi vi dual ' s

ar r est i s an i nt er veni ng act t hat coul d di sr upt any ar gument t hat

t he def endant of f i cer had caused t he cont i nued unl awf ul sei zur e.

See Sanchez v. Per ei r a- Cast i l l o, 590 F. 3d 31, 50 ( 1st Ci r . 2009)

( "We empl oy common l aw t ort pr i nci pl es when conduct i ng ' i nqui r i es

i nt o causat i on under § 1983. ' " ( quot i ng Gut i er r ez- Rodr i guez v.

Car t agena, 882 F. 2d 553, 561 ( 1st Ci r . 1989) ) ) . But , i f a

pl ai nt i f f can over come thi s causat i on pr obl emand demonst r at e t hat

l aw enf or cement of f i cer s wer e r esponsi bl e f or hi s cont i nued,

unr easonabl e pr et r i al det ent i on, t he pl ai nt i f f has st at ed a

const i t ut i onal i nj ur y t hat may be vi ndi cat ed t hr ough a § 1983

act i on. See Evans, 703 F. 3d at 647 ( " [ E] ven wher e . . . a

pr osecut or r et ai ns al l di scret i on t o seek an i ndi ct ment , pol i ce

of f i cer s may have caused t he sei zur e and r emai n l i abl e t o a

wr ongf ul l y i ndi ct ed def endant [ . ] " ) . For exampl e, of f i cer s may be

l i abl e f or unl awf ul pr et r i al det ent i on when t hey have ( 1) "l i ed t o

or mi sl ed t he pr osecut or s"; ( 2) "f ai l ed t o di scl ose excul pat or y

evi dence" ; or ( 3) "undul y pr essured t he pr osecut or t o seek t he

i ndi ct ment . " I d. at 647- 48; see al so Sykes, 625 F. 3d at 308- 309

( r equi r i ng pl ai nt i f f t o demonst r at e t hat t he def endant of f i cer

"made, i nf l uenced, or par t i ci pat ed i n t he deci si on t o pr osecut e"

( quot i ng Fox v. Desot o, 489 F. 3d 227, 237 ( 6t h Ci r . 2007) )

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and al t er at i ons omi t t ed) ) .

Thi s hol di ng har moni zes our l aw wi t h t he l aw of ot her

-17-



ci r cui t s, and makes expl i ci t what has l ong been i mpl i ci t i n our

case l aw. I n t he past we have hel d t hat " some t r ut hs ar e sel f -

evi dent . . . . [ I ] f any concept i s f undament al t o our Amer i can

syst em of j ust i ce, i t i s t hat t hose char ged wi t h uphol di ng t he l aw

ar e pr ohi bi t ed f r om del i ber at el y f abr i cat i ng evi dence and f r ami ng

i ndi vi dual s f or cr i mes t hey di d not commi t . " Li mone, 372 F. 3d at

44- 45. We now f ur t her speci f y t hat one const i t ut i onal sour ce of

t hi s " sel f - evi dent " pr ohi bi t i on agai nst manuf act ur ed evi dence i n

t he pr et r i al det ent i on cont ext i s t he Four t h Amendment ' s guar ant ee

of f r eedom f r om sei zur e but upon pr obabl e cause.

As t o t he el ement s of such a cl ai m, we j oi n t hose f our

ci r cui t s t hat have adopt ed a pur el y const i t ut i onal appr oach, 10

hol di ng t hat a pl ai nt i f f may br i ng a sui t under § 1983 ( or Bi vens)

i f he can est abl i sh t hat : " t he def endant ( 1) caused ( 2) a sei zur e

of t he pl ai nt i f f pur suant t o l egal pr ocess unsuppor t ed by pr obabl e

10 We acknowl edge t hat our st atement s i n di ct a have beeni nconsi st ent , wi t h some cases suggest i ng we mi ght support aconst i t ut i onal appr oach and ot her s i ndi cat i ng a common l awappr oach. I ndeed, our comment s have been so di f f i cul t t o r econci l et hat other cour t s and comment ators have pl aced us on bot h si des of t he spl i t . Compar e Cast el l ano v. Fragozo, 352 F. 3d 939, 949 ( 5t hCi r . 2003) ( en banc) ( di scussi ng ci r cui t spl i t and concl udi ng t hatt he Fi r st Ci r cui t r equi r es showi ng of al l common l aw el ement s) and J acques L. Schi l l achi , Not e, Unexami ned Pr emi ses: Towar d Doct r i nalPur i t y i n § 1983 Mal i ci ous Prosecut i on Doct r i ne, 97 Nw. U. L. Rev.

439, 460- 61 ( 2002) ( same) , wi t h Lambert v. Wi l l i ams, 223 F. 3d 257,261 ( 4t h Ci r . 2000) ( pl aci ng Fi r st Ci r cui t among t he ci r cui t sr equi r i ng somethi ng l ess t han a showi ng of al l common l aw t ortel ement s) , and J oseph G. Yannet t i , Not e, Who' s on Fi r st , What ' s onSecond, and I Don' t Know About t he Si xth Ci r cui t : A § 1983Mal i ci ous Prosecut i on Ci r cui t Spl i t t hat Woul d Conf use Even Abbot t& Cost el l o, 36 Suf f ol k U. L. Rev. 513, 517 ( 2003) ( same) .

-18-



cause, and ( 3) cr i mi nal pr oceedi ngs t er mi nat ed i n pl ai nt i f f ' s

f avor . " Evans, 703 F. 3d at 647. The r i ght s guar ant eed by t he

Four t h Amendment ar e not super seded by t he common l aw, and we see

no pr i nci pl ed r eason why pl ai nt i f f s al l egi ng a const i t ut i onal

i nj ur y shoul d be ent i t l ed t o r el i ef onl y i f t hey can demonst r at e

t hat t hei r cl ai m meet s al l t he el ement s of a common l aw cl ai m.

Though we of t en l ook t o t he common l aw f or gui dance, i t i s a

f ami l i ar pr i nci pl e t hat t he const i t ut i onal t or t aut hor i zed by

§ 1983 "st ands on i t s own, i nf l uenced by t he subst ance, but not

t i ed to t he f or mal cat egor i es and pr ocedur es, of t he common l aw. "

Al br i ght , 510 U. S. at 277 n. 1 ( Gi nsbur g, J . , concur r i ng) ; see al so

Cast el l ano, 352 F. 3d at 954- 55 ( di scussi ng how cont i nued uncr i t i cal

r el i ance on pr e- Al br i ght case l aw has l ed t o an i mper mi ssi bl e

bl endi ng of st at e t or t l aw and const i t ut i onal l aw) .

Though we adopt a pur el y const i t ut i onal r at her t han a

bl ended const i t ut i onal / common l aw appr oach, we bel i eve t hat t he

pr act i cal consequences of t hi s choi ce ar e l ess si gni f i cant t han

t hey i ni t i al l y appear . I n f act , i n most cases, t he showi ng

r equi r ed t o pr ove a Four t h Amendment mal i ci ous prosecut i on cl ai m

under a pur el y const i t ut i onal t heor y wi l l be al most

i ndi st i ngui shabl e f r om t hat r equi r ed i n t he ci r cui t s usi ng a

bl ended const i t ut i onal / common l aw approach t o a Four t h Amendment

mal i ci ous pr osecut i on cl ai m. Regar dl ess of t he appr oach adopt ed,

t o est abl i sh a Four t h Amendment vi ol at i on i nvol vi ng pr et r i al

-19-



detent i on under t he Supr eme Cour t ' s r easoni ng i n Fr anks v.

Del awar e, t he pl ai nt i f f must demonst r at e that –- despi t e the

magi st r at e' s det er mi nat i on t hat t he evi dence pr esent ed was, on i t s

f ace, suf f i ci ent t o est abl i sh pr obabl e cause - - t hat evi dence was,

i n f act , const i t ut i onal l y unaccept abl e because t he of f i cer s

f or mul at ed evi dence essent i al t o t he pr obabl e cause det er mi nat i on

wi t h a ment al st ate si mi l ar t o common l aw mal i ce.

The Supreme Cour t expl ai ned i n Fr anks t hat t o show t hat

a magi st r at e' s f aci al l y val i d pr obabl e cause det er mi nat i on was

const i t ut i onal l y unaccept abl e, t he movi ng par t y must demonst r at e

t hat t he pol i ce of f i cer submi t t ed t o the magi st r at e evi dence t hat

was not "bel i eved or appr opr i at el y accept ed by t he [of f i cer ] as

t r ue. " Franks, 438 U. S. at 165. Thi s was a const i t ut i onal

r equi r ement , f l owi ng f r om t he " l anguage of t he War r ant Cl ause

i t sel f , whi ch sur el y t akes t he af f i ant ' s good f ai t h as i t s

pr emi se. " I d. at 164. The Cour t t hus concl uded t hat i n or der f or

a war r ant t o sat i sf y t he Four t h Amendment , t he magi st r at e' s

pr obabl e cause det ermi nat i on must not have r el i ed upon evi dence an

of f i cer submi t t ed i n bad f ai t h. I d. at 171- 72; see Bur ke v. Town

of Wal pol e, 405 F. 3d 66, 82 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) ( r easoni ng t hat wher e

"r eckl ess mi sst atement s or omi ss i ons" wer e i ncl uded i n a war r ant

af f i davi t "a cour t owes no def er ence t o a magi st r at e' s deci si on t o

i ssue an ar r est war r ant " ) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v. Ranney, 298

F. 3d 74, 78 ( 1st Ci r . 2002) ( not i ng t hat def endant s " f ai l ed t o make

-20-



t he r equi si t e . . . showi ng t hat absent t he f al se i nf or mat i on t he

af f i davi t cont ai ned i nsuf f i ci ent evi dence t o suppor t a f i ndi ng of

pr obabl e cause") .

Fr anks, however , di d not est abl i sh st r i ct l i abi l i t y f or

pol i ce of f i cer s. To show t hat t he evi dence pr esent ed t o t he

magi st r at e was not "t r ut hf ul " i n t he Franks sense, "[ a] l l egat i ons

of [ pol i ce] negl i gence or i nnocent mi st ake ar e i nsuf f i ci ent . "

Franks, 438 U. S. at 171. Rat her , t he pl ai nt i f f must demonst r at e

t hat l aw enf orcement of f i cers made st atement s i n t he warr ant

af f i davi t whi ch amount ed t o "del i ber at e f al sehood or . . . r eckl ess

di sr egar d f or t he t r ut h, " and t hat t hose del i ber at e f al sehoods wer e

necessary t o t he magi st r at e' s pr obabl e cause det er mi nat i on. I d. ;

see al so Bur ke, 405 F. 3d at 81- 82 ( appl yi ng t he Fr anks st andar d i n

t he § 1983 cont ext ) . Thi s ki nd of r epr ehensi bl e behavi or seems

i ndi st i ngui shabl e f r omt he common l aw el ement of mal i ce. 11 I ndeed,

we suspect t hat i n t hose j ur i sdi ct i ons r equi r i ng an i ndependent

showi ng of mal i ce, t he mal i ce anal ysi s i s l ar gel y dupl i cat i ve of

t he pr obabl e cause anal ysi s, whi ch excl udes f r omt hat anal ysi s any

st at ement s i n t he war r ant af f i davi t del i ber at el y f al se or i n

r eckl ess di sr egar d of t he t r ut h. See, e. g. , Gr i der , 618 F. 3d at

1258- 59 ( r el yi ng on the same al l egat i ons concer ni ng a pol i ce

11 Common l aw mal i ce st andards vary by j ur i sdi ct i on andcont ext , but Bl ack' s Law Di ct i onar y def i nes mal i ce t o mean "1. t hei nt ent , wi t hout j ust i f i cat i on or excuse, t o commi t a wr ongf ul act .2. Reckl ess di sr egar d of t he l aw or of a per son' s l egal r i ght s. "Bl ack' s Law Di ct i onar y 712 ( 8t h ed. 2004) .

-21-



of f i cer f abr i cat i ng evi dence t o i nf er bot h t hat t he i ndi vi dual was

ar r est ed wi t hout pr obabl e cause and t hat t he pol i ce of f i cer act ed

wi t h mal i ce) .

Havi ng determi ned t hat t he Four t h Amendment r i ght t o be

f r ee f r om sei zur e but upon pr obabl e cause extends t hr ough the

pr et r i al per i od and a pl ai nt i f f may br i ng a sui t under § 1983 ( or

Bi vens) t o vi ndi cat e t hat r i ght , we t ur n now t o t he compl ai nt at

i ssue i n t hi s appeal and consi der whet her t he f act s al l eged t her ei n

st at e a pl ausi bl e cl ai mt hat Mar t z and Tayl or vi ol at ed t hi s r i ght .

B. Hernandez-Cuevas's Complaint

I n eval uat i ng t he suf f i ci ency of t he compl ai nt , our

i nqui r y f ocuses "on t he reasonabl eness of t he i nf er ence of

l i abi l i t y t hat t he pl ai nt i f f i s aski ng t he cour t t o dr aw f r om t he

f act s al l eged i n t he compl ai nt . " Ocasi o- Her nández, 640 F. 3d at 13;

see al so I qbal , 556 U. S. at 678 ( "A cl ai m has f aci al pl ausi bi l i t y

when t he pl ai nt i f f pl eads f act ual cont ent t hat al l ows t he cour t t o

dr aw t he r easonabl e i nf er ence t hat t he def endant i s l i abl e f or t he

mi sconduct al l eged. ") . To t hi s end, "we f i r st di sr egar d al l

concl usor y al l egat i ons t hat mer el y par r ot t he r el evant l egal

st andar d. " Young v. Wel l s Far go, N. A. , No. 12- 1405, sl i p op. at 10

( 1st Ci r . May 21, 2013) . We t hen consi der whether t he r emai ni ng

al l egat i ons "t aken as t r ue, . . . st at e a pl ausi bl e, not a mer el y

concei vabl e, case f or r el i ef . " Sepúl veda- Vi l l ar i ni v. Dep' t of

Educ. , 628 F. 3d 25, 29 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) . Ul t i mat el y, "[ t ] he

-22-



r el evant quest i on . . . i n assessi ng pl ausi bi l i t y i s not whet her

t he compl ai nt makes any par t i cul ar f act ual al l egat i ons but , r at her ,

whet her ' t he compl ai nt war r ant [ s] di smi ssal because i t f ai l ed i n

t ot o t o r ender pl ai nt i f f s ' ent i t l ement t o r el i ef pl ausi bl e. ' "

Rodr í guez- Reyes v. Mol i na- Rodr í guez, 711 F. 3d 49, 55 ( 1st Ci r .

2013) ( quot i ng Bel l At l . Cor p. v. Twombl y, 550 U. S. 544, 569 n. 14

( 2007) ) .

Her e, despi t e our admoni t i on t hat " [ t ] he compl ai nt shoul d

be read as a whol e, not parsed pi ece by pi ece t o determi ne whether

each al l egat i on, i n i sol at i on, i s pl ausi bl e, " Ocasi o- Her nández, 640

F. 3d at 14 ( quot i ng Br aden v. Wal - Mar t St or es, I nc. , 588 F. 3d 585,

594 ( 8t h Ci r . 2009) ) , t he gover nment has done j ust t hat , el ect i ng

i n i t s appeal t o chal l enge the compl ai nt i n a pi ecemeal f ashi on.

The gover nment dwel l s i n par t i cul ar on f i ve al l egat i ons i n t he

compl ai nt , each of whi ch i t cl ai ms amount s t o nothi ng more than t he

sor t of "f or mul ai c reci t at i on" t hat I qbal r equi r es us t o di sr egar d.

These al l egat i ons ar e t hat : 1) Mar t z conduct ed a " t ai nted" phot o

ar r ay; 2) Mar t z i ncl uded t he i dent i f i cat i on obt ai ned f r omt he phot o

ar r ay i n an i nt er nal FBI r epor t ; 3) Tayl or r eckl essl y or knowi ngl y

i ncl uded t hat same i dent i f i cat i on i n a war r ant af f i davi t ; 4)

Mar t z' s r epor t and phot o i dent i f i cat i on caused Her nandez- Cuevas t o

be ar r est ed and charged; and 5) Tayl or and Mar t z f r amed Hernandez-

Cuevas because t hey wer e "i n a rush t o i ndi ct someone" f or t he rol e

UNSUB #3 pl ayed i n the Carol i na conspi r acy.

-23-



We ar e unpersuaded by t he government ' s bal kani zed

appr oach. Rat her , r evi ewi ng t he compl ai nt as a whol e, we bel i eve

t hat i t was r easonabl e f or t he di st r i ct cour t t o i nf er f r om t he

cumul at i ve power of t he f act s al l eged i n t he compl ai nt t hat Mar t z

and Tayl or caused Heranandez- Cuevas t o be detai ned wi t hout pr obabl e

cause f or t hr ee mont hs f ol l owi ng hi s i ni t i al appear ance bef or e t he

magi st r at e. Cf . Ocasi o- Hernández, 640 F. 3d at 15 ( " [ T]he Supr eme

Cour t has suggest ed t hat al l egat i ons t hat woul d i ndi vi dual l y l ack

t he hef t t o make a cl ai m pl ausi bl e may suf f i ce t o st at e a cl ai m i n

t he cont ext of t he compl ai nt ' s ot her f actual al l egat i ons. " ( ci t i ng

Twombl y, 550 U. S. at 557) ) . Speci f i cal l y, we f i nd t hat Her nandez-

Cuevas' s compl ai nt descr i bes t he f ol l owi ng nar r at i ve.

1. July 2004 Surveillance

I n J ul y 2004, an FBI t ask f or ce sur vei l l ance uni t

wi t nessed a bl ack mal e, shor t , st ocky, and i n hi s l at e f i f t i es,

t r ansf er $321, 956 i n dr ug pr oceeds t o an under cover i nf or mant . The

agent s t ai l ed t hi s man t o Sant a Ana St r eet i n Car ol i na, but

event ual l y l ost hi m. They l ast saw hi m wal ki ng t owar d t he mul t i -

uni t bui l di ng l ocat ed at 1655 Sant a Ana St r eet .

2. The Investigation

Al t hough t he i nvest i gat i on i nt o the br oader money

l aunder i ng conspi r acy cont i nued, more than a year passed and t he

FBI was st i l l unabl e t o l ocat e or i dent i f y the man who had

del i ver ed t he $321, 956 t o UI - 1 i n t he Car ol i na par ki ng l ot . Under

-24-



pr essur e f r om t hei r super i or s t o i dent i f y t he subj ect bef or e mor e

t i me was l ost , agent s Mart z and Tayl or di scovered t hat t her e was

i ndeed a bl ack mal e l i vi ng at 1655 Sant a Ana St r eet . Hi s name was

Car l os Hernandez- Cuevas.

Ot her t han hi s r ace and hi s addr ess, not hi ng connect ed

t hi s younger man t o t he money l aunder i ng conspi r acy. Hernandez-

Cuevas di d not mat ch t he physi cal descr i pt i on of t he ol der man

obser ved i n t he Puebl o Supermarket parki ng l ot , and he was not

associ at ed wi t h ei t her t he J eep Cher okee or t he Mi t subi shi Mont er o

t he sur vei l l ance uni t i dent i f i ed at t he scene.

3. The Photo Array

Real i zi ng t hat t hi s meager evi dence woul d be woef ul l y

i nsuf f i ci ent t o est abl i sh pr obabl e cause, Mar t z and Tayl or deci ded

t o cr eat e f al se evi dence l i nki ng Her nandez- Cuevas t o t he cr i me. To

accompl i sh t hei r unl awf ul means, Tayl or and Mart z worked i n concer t

wi t h conf i dent i al i nf or mant UI - 1 t o ar r ange a t ai nt ed phot o ar r ay.

Al t hough t he compl ai nt does not speci f y how t he co- conspi r at or s

t ai nt ed t he phot o ar r ay, Her nandez- Cuevas has pl ed suf f i ci ent f act s

t o suppor t a r easonabl e i nf er ence t hat somet hi ng was ami ss.

Speci f i cal l y, Her nandez- Cuevas has al l eged that r at her t han

sel ect i ng a photogr aph of someone matchi ng t he descr i pt i on of UNSUB

#3 - - shor t , st ocky, and near l y si xt y - - UI - 1 pi cked a phot ogr aph

of Her nandez- Cuevas, who was t al l , t hi n, and onl y f or t y.

The gover nment i s cor r ect t hat a mi st aken i dent i f i cat i on

-25-



i s not necessari l y i nconsi st ent wi t h i nnocent behavi or . Her e,

however , t he f act s al l eged concer ni ng t he st r i ki ng physi cal

di ssi mi l ar i t y bet ween t he sur vei l l ance descr i pt i on of UNSUB #3 and

Hernandez- Cuevas make t he i nf erence t hat t he phot o ar r ay was

somehow di shonest more pl ausi bl e t han t he i nf erence of an i nnocent ,

but mi st aken, i dent i f i cat i on. That i s, Her nandez- Cuevas' s

al l egat i ons are mor e than mer el y "consi st ent wi t h conspi r acy, but

j ust as much i n l i ne wi t h" i nnocent behavi or . Twombl y, 550 U. S. at

554. Taken t oget her , t hey r ai se a " r easonabl e expect at i on" t hat

f ur t her pr oceedi ngs wi l l r eveal evi dence of i l l egal conduct . I d.

at 556.

Li ke t he di st r i ct cour t , we ar e unconvi nced by t he

government ' s argument t hat Hernandez- Cuevas' s al l egat i on t hat t he

phot o ar r ay was " t ai nt ed" i s " t hr eadbar e" i n t he sense of I qbal .

Cer t ai nl y, an al l egat i on t hat a phot o ar r ay has been " t ai nt ed" can

be a l egal concl usi on i n a case wher e a pl ai nt i f f al l eges t hat t he

l i kel i hood of mi si dent i f i cat i on was so hi gh t hat use of t he

i dent i f i cat i on at t r i al woul d amount t o a due pr ocess vi ol at i on.

See Fost er v. Cal i f or ni a, 394 U. S. 440, 442- 43 & n. 2 ( 1969) ( not i ng

t hat " i n some cases t he pr ocedur es l eadi ng t o an eyewi t ness

i dent i f i cat i on may be so def ect i ve as t o make t he i dent i f i cat i on

const i t ut i onal l y i nadmi ssi bl e as a mat t er of l aw") . But we do not

under st and Her nandez- Cuevas' s al l egat i on t hat hi s phot o ar r ay was

"t ai nt ed" i n t hi s t echni cal sense. Rat her , hi s al l egat i on i s a

-26-



descr i pt i ve, f act ual st at ement i dent i f yi ng t he means Mar t z, Tayl or ,

and UI - 1 empl oyed t o f r ame hi m.

4. The Warrant Affidavit

Tayl or t hen ei t her knowi ngl y or wi t h r eckl ess di sr egar d

f or t he t r ut h made swor n st at ement s i n a war r ant af f i davi t

i dent i f yi ng Hernandez- Cuevas as t he man who del i ver ed t he t ai nt ed

cash t o UI - 1 i n t he Puebl o Super mar ket par ki ng l ot . I t i s a

pl ausi bl e i nf er ence t hat Tayl or act ed wi t h t he r equi si t e ment al

st at e because t he compl ai nt al l eges t hat Tayl or made these

st atement s despi t e t he f act t hat he knew t hat Hernandez- Cuevas di d

not mat ch t he or i gi nal descr i pt i on of UNSUB #3 i n t he sur vei l l ance

r epor t , t hat Her nandez- Cuevas was not associ at ed wi t h ei t her t he

J eep Cherokee or t he Mi t subi shi Mont er o i dent i f i ed by t he

sur vei l l ance uni t as par t i ci pat i ng i n t he par ki ng l ot t r ansact i on,

and t hat t he onl y evi dence l i nki ng Hernandez- Cuevas t o t he money-

l aunder i ng conspi r acy was t he tai nt ed phot o i dent i f i cat i on, hi s

r ace, and hi s addr ess. See Bur ke, 405 F. 3d at 81 ( "Reckl ess

di sr egar d f or t he t r ut h i n t he submi ssi on of a war r ant appl i cat i on

may be est abl i shed wher e an of f i cer i n f act ent er t ai ned ser i ous

doubt s as t o the t r ut h of t he al l egat i ons or wher e ci r cumst ances

evi nced obvi ous r easons t o doubt t he ver aci t y of t he al l egat i ons i n

t he appl i cat i on. " ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and al t er at i on

omi t t ed) ) .

-27-



5. Arrest and Detention

The magi st r at e j udge det er mi ned on t he basi s of Tayl or ' s

af f i davi t t hat pr obabl e cause exi st ed and i ssued a war r ant f or

Her nandez- Cuevas' s ar r est . Under t he Franks anal ysi s, see

di scussi on supr a, we, l i ke t he di st r i ct cour t , must r econsi der t he

evi dence that was bef or e t he magi st r at e, omi t t i ng those

mi sst at ement s of Tayl or t hat wer e i nt ent i onal l y or r eckl essl y made,

t o det er mi ne i f , wi t hout t he f al se evi dence, t her e was st i l l

pr obabl e cause t o arr est Hernandez- Cuevas. See Fr anks, 438 U. S. at

172 n. 8 ( not i ng t hat once the f al se evi dence has been removed, " i f

what i s l ef t i s suf f i ci ent t o sust ai n pr obabl e cause, t he

i naccur aci es ar e i r r el evant ") . We agr ee wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t

t hat , wi t hout Mar t z' s st at ement s based on t he phot o i dent i f i cat i on,

t he r emai ni ng f act s l i nki ng Her nandez- Cuevas t o t he conspi r acy –-

t hat he was bl ack and t hat he l i ved i n an apart ment compl ex cl ose

t o where UNSUB #3 was l ast seen –- woul d be woef ul l y i nsuf f i ci ent

t o est abl i sh pr obabl e cause.

Never t hel ess, on t he basi s of a war r ant t hat woul d have

never have i ssued wi t hout t he t ai nt ed photo ar r ay, Hernandez- Cuevas

was arr est ed and br ought bef ore a magi st r ate j udge, who bound hi m

over and or der ed hi m det ai ned i n f eder al cust ody f or t hr ee mont hs

unt i l a second magi st r at e j udge or der ed hi s r el ease. Shor t l y

t her eaf t er , t he pr osecut or di smi ssed t he charges agai nst Her anndez-

Cuevas, set t i ng t he st age f or t hi s cl ai m of unl awf ul det ent i on.

-28-



6. Conclusion

Gi ven t he speci f i c f act s Her nandez- Cuevas has i ncl uded i n

hi s compl ai nt - – about t he J ul y 20, 2004 t r ansact i on i n Car ol i na,

hi s own physi cal di ss i mi l ar i t y wi t h UNSUB #3, t he absence of any

r el at i onshi p t o t he car s at t he scene, and t he l ack of ot her

evi dence t yi ng hi m t o t he conspi r acy - - we af f i r m t he di st r i ct

cour t ' s concl usi on t hat t he pl ai nt i f f has st at ed a pl ausi bl e cl ai m

t hat Mar t z and Tayl or , t hr ough t he use of a t ai nt ed phot o ar r ay,

caused Her nandez- Cuevas t o be hel d i n f eder al cust ody f or t hr ee

mont hs wi t hout pr obabl e cause i n vi ol at i on of t he Four t h

Amendment ' s pr ohi bi t i on agai nst unr easonabl e sei zures.

III.

For t hese r easons, t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deni al of qual i f i ed

i mmuni t y i s af f i r med. We r emand t o t he di st r i ct cour t f or f ur t her

pr oceedi ngs consi st ent wi t h t hi s opi ni on.

So ordered.

-29-

Date post:	02-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	scribd-government-docs
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

Hernandez-Cuevas v. Taylor, 1st Cir. (2013)

Documents