# Eversole v. Steele

> Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · July 14, 1995 · 59 F.3d 710

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6935335

## Case

- **Full name:** Ruth M. EVERSOLE v. Harold STEELE, In His Official Capacity as Sheriff of Fayette County, Indiana, George Zimmerman, as Former Sheriff of Fayette County, Indiana and Individually Joseph Todd, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Lieutenant Detective of the Connersville, Indiana Police Department
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
- **Decided:** July 14, 1995
- **Citations:** 59 F.3d 710; 1995 WL 414981
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Moran
- **Judges:** Coffey, Kanne, Moran
- **Cited by:** 94 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6935335

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that “it is the plaintiff who bears the burden of proof’ under the two-part qualified immunity test
- describing a drug task force team as a “multi-jurisdictional effort of law enforcement agencies . . . to stop or at least control drug activity” and noting that the task force was not an official entity with rules or regulations of its own

## Opinion text

MORAN, District Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I join in the Court’s opinion, with one exception: I do not believe that Detective McQuinley is entitled to qualified immunity. I would reverse the district court and deny his motion for summary judgment.
The concept of qualified immunity has largely eviscerated “false arrest” as a constitutional tort because it bars relief unless there was plain incompetence or knowing violations. That protects Detective Sherck; the record indicates that he relied upon the information provided by his brother officer, and he was entitled to do so.
Detective McQuinley is another matter. Plaintiff suggests that a jury could find that *719 McQuinley deliberately misread the date because plaintiffs son had had numerous prior problems involving criminal conduct, of which McQuinley was well aware and which had required McQuinley to deal with plaintiff on various occasions in the past. That stretches permissible inferences too far. I agree with the majority that the record establishes at most that he misread the number and did not realize that the entry, if April 8, was out of sequence.
But that, I believe, is enough to defeat qualified immunity. The sole bases for the arrest on a felony charge were the two entries in the logs. Anything more than the most superficial attention would have alerted the officer to the fact that the number in one was ambiguous and that, if it were an 8, it was out of sequence. It was plain incompetence to base a serious criminal charge upon so casual an investigation.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6935335. Public record. Not legal advice.