W.D.N.C.: While NCIC data error on warrant was “troubling,” the arrest was still in good faith

While there was an NCIC warrant entry error which was “troubling,” 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).

“A § 1983 malicious prosecution claim ‘is properly understood as a Fourth Amendment claim for unreasonable seizure which incorporates certain elements of the common law tort.’ Evans v. Chalmers, 703 F.3d 636, 647 (4th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). To succeed, a plaintiff must show that the defendant ‘(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.’ Id. A party challenging the veracity of a warrant application must show that the officers made ‘material false statements in the warrant application’ either deliberately or with a ‘“reckless disregard for the truth,”’ 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, ‘material facts with the intent to make, or with reckless disregard of whether they thereby made, the [application] misleading.’ Humbert, 866 F.3d at 556 (citation omitted).” Hicks v. Anne Arundel Cty., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 19616 (4th Cir. Aug. 6, 2024).*

This entry was posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Arrest or entry on arrest, Good faith exception. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.