CA5: False arrest based on suppressed and manipulated information stated claim

Plaintiff sufficiently pled a false arrest claim to survive dismissal. He claimed the officer arrested without probable cause, directed a witness who to pick out of a photo lineup, and ignored and suppressed exculpatory evidence that undermined probable cause. In addition, the fact a grand jury indicted plaintiff doesn’t protect the officer. Green v. Thomas, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 4912 (5th Cir. Mar. 3, 2025):

We next turn to Green’s Fourteenth Amendment due process claim. To succeed, Green must plead “specific facts” regarding “what exculpatory evidence [Detective Thomas] suppressed and concealed” and “what ‘unlawful means'” she “used to procure the identification[].”

Green’s complaint sufficiently alleges a violation of his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. As to exculpatory evidence, the same evidence that should have cast doubt in Detective Thomas’s mind regarding Green’s culpability and Jennings’s reliability is the same evidence that Green alleges was suppressed from the grand jury. And as to Jennings’s identification, Green alleges—based on Jennings’s recantation, attached to the complaint—that Jennings identified a different suspect in the photo lineup with Detective Thomas. After Jennings identified someone else, Detective Thomas “prodd[ed]” Jennings by pointing to another suspect: Green. This method of identification, if true, is the very type of “unlawful” and “suggestive” identification procedure for which we have previously denied qualified immunity at the motion-to-dismiss stage.

Accepting his allegations as true, Green’s complaint is clear. Detective Thomas manipulated a photo lineup. She relied on uncorroborated testimony from a high—or withdrawing—jailhouse informant who was contradicted by police reports to obtain an indictment against Green. And she withheld critical information in Green’s favor from the grand jury—information which should have given Detective Thomas pause to even indict him in the first place. Green has sufficiently alleged violations of his clearly established Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Subject to the independent-intermediary doctrine, discussed below, Detective Thomas is not entitled to qualified immunity on Green’s Fourth Amendment false arrest and Fourteenth Amendment due process claims.

This entry was posted in Arrest or entry on arrest. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.