CA6: Still QI for false arrest from an allegedly false arrest affidavit

Clearly established law does not say that swearing a false arrest warrant violates the Fourth Amendment, so 1983 defendant gets qualified immunity. The complaint could potentially state a claim for malicious prosecution, but plaintiff never alleged that. Schulz v. Gendregske, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 22755, 2013 FED App. 0950N (6th Cir. November 5, 2013)*:

Here, no clearly established law compels the conclusion that officers who neither arrested the plaintiff nor swore false statements in a warrant affidavit can be liable for false arrest. (Schulz’s alleged facts might be a better fit with a malicious prosecution claim, as “existing cases do indicate that an officer may be responsible for commencing a criminal proceedings against a plaintiff, where the officer made, influenced, or participated in the decision to prosecute.” Sykes, 625 F.3d at 311 (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). But Schulz did not sue Gendregske for malicious prosecution.) Thus, Gendregske is entitled to qualified immunity on Schulz’s false-arrest claim.

The Fourth Amendment presupposes a truthful showing of probable cause. Isn’t a false showing of probable cause leading to an “objectively unreasonable” seizure? If an officer can lie to get an arrest warrant and not be liable under the Fourth Amendment, then the Fourth Amendment seems to have lost meaning.