While there was an NCIC warrant entry error which was \u201ctroubling,\u201d it has nothing to do with the good faith of the officers in executing it under Evans. United States v. Valdez, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138952 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 6, 2024).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cA \u00a7 1983 malicious prosecution claim \u2018is properly understood as a Fourth Amendment claim for unreasonable seizure which incorporates certain elements of the common law tort.\u2019 Evans v. Chalmers, 703 F.3d 636, 647 (4th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). To succeed, a plaintiff must show that the defendant \u2018(1) caused (2) a seizure of the plaintiff pursuant to legal process unsupported by probable cause, and (3) criminal proceedings terminated in [the] plaintiff’s favor.\u2019 Id. A party challenging the veracity of a warrant application must show that the officers made \u2018material false statements in the warrant application\u2019 either deliberately or with a \u2018\u201creckless disregard for the truth,\u201d\u2019 Humbert v. Mayor & City Council of Balt. City, 866 F.3d 546, 556 (4th Cir. 2017) (citing Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 171 (1978)), or omitted from that application, \u2018material facts with the intent to make, or with reckless disregard of whether they thereby made, the [application] misleading.\u2019 Humbert, 866 F.3d at 556 (citation omitted).\u201d Hicks v. Anne Arundel Cty., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 19616 (4th Cir. Aug. 6, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
While there was an NCIC warrant entry error which was \u201ctroubling,\u201d it has nothing to do with the good faith of the officers in executing it under Evans. United States v. Valdez, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138952 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 6, … Continue reading