CA6: No QI for prosecutors instigating raid without PC

Tennessee prosecutors have no qualified immunity for CBD raids instigated without probable cause in Operation Candy Crush. Even the state indictment they procured without probable cause doesn’t grant them immunity. Rieves v. Town of Smyrna, Tennessee, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 15614 (6th Cir. May 15, 2020):

The facts, taken as true and construed in the plaintiffs’ favor, support the inference that Zimmerman and Jones erroneously advised the RCSO that the plaintiffs were selling illegal CBD products even though the prosecutors knew or should have known that they had no evidence of the products’ illegality. Zimmerman’s December 2017 email to TBI employees seeking clarification about the lab results implies that he did not, at least at that time, have probable cause to arrest the plaintiffs.  Yet, even though the TBI claims it clarified that it could not determine whether the products were illegal, Zimmerman continued to direct the investigation and push Operation Candy Crush forward. Similarly, Jones’s late January 2018 email to Sharp and Zimmerman about the TBI potentially not corroborating the illegality of the products suggests that he also knew they lacked probable cause for the arrests throughout the investigation.⁹ Jones and Zimmerman pushed law enforcement to effectuate the arrests by providing unsupported advice that the CBD products were illegal and there was probable cause to arrest the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs thus adequately allege a constitutional violation.

9.Contrary to Zimmerman’s claims, the grand jury indictments, which were allegedly based on false information, do not conclusively establish probable cause. See King v. Harwood, 852 F.3d 568, 587-88 (6th Cir. 2017) (holding that “the presumption that [a] grand-jury indictment is evidence of probable cause is rebuttable and not conclusive” when law enforcement presents false information in attaining that indictment).