Despite the parties' apparent confusion, the relevant constitutional or statutory provision that Gitchell may have violated is not the Mississippi statute governing youth warrants but rather the requirement that law enforcement officers not lie to the judge in procuring a warrant. Michalik v. Hermann, 422 F.3d 252, 261 (5th Cir.2005).B. Whitfield and Lindsey
Hart , 127 F.3d at 448. Likewise, "an officer who makes knowing and intentional omissions that result in a warrant being issued without probable cause" is also liable under Franks . Michalik v. Hermann , 422 F.3d 252, 258 n.5 (5th Cir. 2005) (citing Hart , 127 F.3d at 448 ). Separate from a Franks liability context, an officer could be held liable for a search authorized by a warrant when the affidavit presented to the magistrate was "so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence unreasonable."
Second, the district court found a genuine dispute of fact regarding whether Phillips was reckless in identifying the plaintiff in his offense report.On appeal, Phillips contends that the district court should have followed another Fifth Circuit case, Michalik v. Hermann , 422 F.3d 252 (5th Cir. 2005), and subsequent cases that applied Michalik. Pursuant to those cases, Phillips claims, an officer who neither signed nor prepared the affidavit is not liable for Fourth Amendment violations. In the alternative, Phillips argues that the district court erred in finding a genuine issue of fact regarding his alleged recklessness.
"[T]he usual summary judgment burden of proof is altered in the case of a qualified immunity defense." Wolfe v. Meziere, 566 F. App'x 353, 354 (5th Cir. 2014) (citing Michalik v. Hermann, 422 F.3d 252, 262 (5th Cir. 2005); Bazan ex rel. Bazan v. Hidalgo Cnty., 246 F.3d 481, 489 (5th Cir. 2001)). "An officer need only plead his good faith, which then shifts the burden to the plaintiff, who must rebut the defense by establishing that the officer's allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established law.
Wallace v. County of Comal, 400 F.3d 284, 289 (5th Cir. 2005); see also Estate of Davis ex rel. McCully v. City of N. Richland Hills, 406 F.3d 375, 380 (5th Cir. 2005) (stating that qualified immunity protects all but the plainly incompetent and those who knowingly violate the law). The qualified immunity analysis is a two-step inquiry. Michalik v. Hermann, 422 F.3d 252, 257 (5th Cir. 2005). First, the Court must decide whether Turman has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right.
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009) (concluding that the rigid protocol mandated in Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) - that called for consideration of the two-ponged analysis in a particular order - should not be "regarded as an inflexible requirement"). Michalik v. Hermann, 422 F.3d 252, 262 (5th Cir. 2005).
" According to the Fifth Circuit: Michalik v. Hermann, 422 F.3d 252, 257-58 (5th Cir. 2005). Collins v. Ainsworth, 382 F.3d 529, 537 (5th Cir. 2004) (citing Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 740, 122 S.Ct. 2508 (2002)); see also Brown v. Bolin, 2012 WL 6194359, at *3 (5th Cir. Dec. 12, 2012); Hinojosa v. Johnson, 277 Fed. App'x 370, 374 (5th Cir. 2008).
First, the court must determine if the claimant has alleged that the official violated clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of the claimant. Michalik v. Hermann, 422 F.3d 252, 257 (5th Cir. 2005).See also Collins, 382 F.3d at 537. If the claimant has alleged such a violation, the court must then consider "whether the official's conduct was objectively reasonable under the law at the time of the incident."
In Malley v. Briggs, 106 S.Ct. 1092 (1986), the Supreme Court held that a police officer may be held liable in his individual capacity for filing an application for an arrest warrant without probable cause. See also Michalik v. Hermann, 422 F.3d 252, 259-260 (5th Cir. 2005). In Malley the officer in charge of the investigation presented criminal complaints to the state judge charging the defendants with felony marijuana possession.
Because Detective Brumley appears to have participated fully with Staton in the investigation, there is a material fact issue whether he was "in a position to see the whole picture, to understand his responsibility [under Malley], and thus fully to assess probable cause questions." Michalik v. Hermann, 422 F.3d 252, 261 (5th Cir.2005). Michalik holds that "such an officer, who is not the affiant [who provided the affidavit to support an arrest warrant], may be held liable, along with the affiant, under the principles of Malley."