holding that “in a garden-variety false arrest claim challenging the probable cause for an arrest, if the arrest warrant is facially valid, the arresting officer enjoys qualified immunity”
How later courts described this case
- holding that “in a garden-variety false arrest claim challenging the probable cause for an arrest, if the arrest warrant is facially valid, the arresting officer enjoys qualified immunity”
- explaining the requirements for stating a claim under Brady
- applying the Brady test
- probable cause constitutes a defense to false arrest and malicious prosecution under federal law
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
GOULD, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in Judge Gwin’s opinion. I add this separate concurrence to point out that I think the substantive idea in Judge Gwin’s separate concurrence is a good one, and that I would personally be inclined to follow the united view of all circuits to have reached that issue. See Morgan v. Gertz, 166 F.3d 1307, 1310 (10th Cir.1999); Flores v. Satz, 137 F.3d 1275 , 1278 (11th Cir.1998); McCune v. City of Grand Rapids, 842 F.2d 903, 907 (6th Cir.1988). But cf. Mosley v. City of Chicago, 614 F.3d 391, 397 (7th Cir.2010) (declining to decide the issue). Nonetheless, on reconsideration I decline to reach the issue at this time. Several colleagues on our court have urged that the issue be left open, and I haven’t *941 seen a statement from any colleague urging that we decide the issue now. In light of these objections from some colleagues and because the substantive idea that a conviction is a prerequisite to a Brady claim is not needed to decide this appeal, I have withdrawn my precedential support for that idea so that it can be addressed on a fresh slate in some other case.