Gomez v. Atkins, 4th Cir. (2002)
Gomez v. Atkins, 4th Cir. (2002)
v.
W. J. ATKINS, in his official and
individual capacity,
Defendant-Appellant,
and
EARL MOOSE BUTLER, Sheriff of
Cumberland County, in his official
and individual capacity; H. R.
COLLINS, in his official and
individual capacity; JERRY D.
WEBSTER, in his individual capacity;
WESTERN SURETY COMPANY; DEBRA
KOENIG,
Defendants.
No. 01-2112
GOMEZ v. ATKINS
COUNSEL
ARGUED: Reginald B. Gillespie, Jr., FAISON & GILLESPIE, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Carl Wesley Hodges, II, SHIPMAN & ASSOCIATES, L.L.P., Wilmington, North Carolina, for
Appellees. ON BRIEF: William C. Morgan, Jr., THE BROUGH
LAW FIRM, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gary K.
Shipman, SHIPMAN & ASSOCIATES, L.L.P., Wilmington, North
Carolina, for Appellees.
OPINION
KING, Circuit Judge:
Appellee Isidro Gomez ("Isidro") initiated this proceeding in the
Eastern District of North Carolina under the provisions of 42 U.S.C.
1983. He contended that Sergeant W. J. Atkins of the Cumberland
County Sheriffs Department (the "Sheriffs Department") violated
his constitutional rights by causing him to be charged and arrested,
without probable cause, for the murder of his wife. He also asserted
various related state law claims. Sergeant Atkins sought summary
judgment in the district court, claiming qualified immunity. When the
court declined to recognize his immunity claim, he filed this interlocutory appeal. As explained below, we vacate and remand for dismissal.
I.
In July 1980, Rickie Jean Gomez, Isidros first wife, was murdered
in Fayetteville, North Carolina.1 In the latter half of 1980, the Sher1
GOMEZ v. ATKINS
GOMEZ v. ATKINS
Around 7:00 p.m. on July 14, 1980, after consulting with a neighbor, Isidro called the local police and reported that Rickie Jean was
missing. Law enforcement officers arrived at the Gomez home a few
minutes later, and a crime scene investigation was conducted. There
were no signs of robbery or forced entry into the home, but the investigators discovered blood in and around the master bedroom, a large
blood stain on the underside of the mattress, and bloody shoe prints
in the driveway. Upon removing the blood-soaked mattress from the
bedroom, investigators noticed that Isidro was not distraught, and that
he seemed unconcerned that his wife was missing and possibly dead.
That evening, Isidro went to the County Law Enforcement Center to
be interviewed.
At approximately 10:20 the next morning, July 15, 1980, deputies
located Rickie Jeans car, with her dead body inside, in a wooded area
about a mile from the Gomez home. She was wearing a nightgown,
and the investigators found bed linen from the master bedroom in her
car. An autopsy revealed that Rickie Jean had been badly beaten and
stabbed in the chest. The time of her death was established as being
six to thirty-six hours prior to the discovery of her body, i.e., between
10:00 p.m. on Sunday, July 13, and 4:00 a.m. on Tuesday, July 15,
1980.
During the Initial Investigation, Isidro provided the Sheriffs
Department with blood and hair samples. Tests on the evidence found
at the Gomez home revealed the presence of both Types O and A
blood, the types of Rickie Jean and Isidro, respectively. Blood found
under Rickie Jeans fingernails was the same type as Isidros. Loose
hairs found on Rickie Jeans body were "microscopically consistent"
with Isidros hair. Investigators also discovered that Rickie Jean had
advised several of her friends that Isidro had previously subjected her
to physical abuse and beatings, and that he had threatened to kill her.
Throughout his interviews with the Sheriffs Department, Isidro
maintained that he had not arrived home in Fayetteville until 6:00
p.m. on July 14, 1980, and that Rickie Jeans car was not there when
he arrived. Shortly thereafter, according to Isidro, he noticed small
blood stains in the house. After receiving a phone call from Rickie
Jeans supervisor, Isidro called friends and relatives in an effort to
locate Rickie Jean. Then, upon going outside to the driveway, he first
GOMEZ v. ATKINS
GOMEZ v. ATKINS
Sergeant Atkinss Report also contained at least three material inaccuracies. First, it stated that Isidros shoe size was the same as that found
in a bloody footprint in the driveway at the crime scene. Second, it
asserted that witnesses had spoken with Isidro in Fayetteville at 3:00 on
Monday afternoon, when the witness statements from the Initial Investigation indicated that the first such conversation occurred at 6:20 p.m.
Third, relying on statements of officers who had travelled from Atlanta
to Fayetteville, the Report stated that the drive could be completed in
four-and-a-half to five hours without exceeding the speed limit, when in
fact the trip would take approximately seven hours without speeding.
GOMEZ v. ATKINS
On May 14, 1996, Sergeant Atkins met with his supervisors and
the legal advisor for the Sheriffs Department (attorney Deborah
Koenig), for the purpose of discussing the homicide investigation and
how he should proceed with it.3 Atkins reviewed with them the evidence from the Initial Investigation and the additional evidence
acquired in the Follow-up. He had concluded that there was sufficient
evidence to charge Isidro with the murder of Rickie Jean, and his
supervising officers and the legal advisor agreed.
Before seeking an arrest warrant for Isidro, Sergeant Atkins prepared an affidavit, in which he stated that "based upon the original
investigation in 1980 and upon the continuing investigation from
1995 to 1996," Isidro "caused the death of his wife Ricki Jean
Gomez." Prior to executing his affidavit, Atkins reviewed its contents
with attorney Koenig, who responded that "it look[s] good to me."
Atkins then presented the affidavit to a magistrate in the Cumberland
County District Court, seeking issuance of an arrest warrant. The
magistrate, on May 14, 1996, issued a murder warrant for Isidro,
based on the "information furnished under oath," and Isidro was
arrested at his home in Chesterfield, Virginia. He was then transported to Cumberland County, and on May 24, 1996, he was released
on bond.
D.
After being arrested for the murder of his wife, Isidro retained lawyer Bobby Deaver of Fayetteville as his counsel. At a two-day
probable-cause hearing conducted in the district court in September
1996, the issue of probable cause was litigated.4 In support thereof,
the prosecution presented the testimony of six witnesses, photographs
3
Sheriff Butler was not present at the meeting, but the Chief Deputy,
Chief Detective, and other supervising officers from the Sheriffs Department attended.
4
The conduct of a probable-cause hearing in North Carolina is governed by N.C. Gen. Stat. 15A-606(a). The purpose of such a hearing
is "to determine whether the accused should be discharged or whether
sufficient probable cause exists to bind the case over to superior court
and to seek an indictment against the defendant." State v. Sellars, 278
S.E.2d 907, 913 (N.C. Ct. App. 1981).
GOMEZ v. ATKINS
GOMEZ v. ATKINS
alleged, inter alia, that Atkins and Butler had violated Isidros Fourth
Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure. Isidros present wife, Linda Gomez, sought damages for loss of consortium.
On November 17, 2000, Sergeant Atkins and Sheriff Butler filed
a joint motion for summary judgment, maintaining that they were
entitled to qualified immunity for their actions in the investigation and
arrest of Isidro. Conversely, Isidro asserted that qualified immunity
was inappropriate because, after considering his alibi and correcting
the errors in Atkinss Report, no reasonable officer could believe
there was probable cause to arrest him. On December 27, 2000, Isidro
dismissed all the claims against Butler in his individual capacity, rendering Butlers claim of qualified immunity moot. On August 27,
2001, the district court issued its Order denying Atkinss qualified
immunity claim. Gomez v. Butler, Order, No. 5:99-CV-611-BR(2)
(E.D.N.C. Aug. 27, 2001) (the "Order"). The court concluded, inter
alia, that the evidence was insufficient to establish probable cause to
charge Isidro and that "a reasonable officer could not have believed
that there was probable cause to seek an arrest warrant under the circumstances." Id. at 17. Atkins then appealed to this Court from the
denial of his immunity claim, and, on September 20, 2001, the district
court proceedings were stayed pending our review of his claim. We
possess jurisdiction pursuant to the collateral order doctrine. Mitchell
v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530 (1985); Wadkins v. Arnold, 214 F.3d
535, 536 n.1 (4th Cir. 2000).
II.
We review de novo a district courts denial of qualified immunity.
As a general proposition, in assessing a qualified immunity claim, a
Cumberland County Sheriffs Department, Jerry D. Webster of the North
Carolina State Bureau of Investigation, and Western Surety Company.
An Amended Complaint, filed July 17, 2000, named Ms. Koenig, the
legal advisor, as a defendant. The plaintiffs thereafter dismissed Collins,
Webster, and Koenig. They did not sue the district attorney, the magistrate, the district court judge, or the grand jury. See Wadkins v. Arnold,
214 F.3d 535, 538 n.5 (4th Cir. 2000) (explaining that judicial officers
acting in their judicial capacities and prosecutors authorizing prosecution
are protected by absolute immunity).
10
GOMEZ v. ATKINS
court must view the facts in the light most favorable to the party
asserting the injury. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001). As
such, to the extent that there is a factual dispute concerning what Sergeant Atkins knew after conducting his Follow-up investigation, we
must resolve any such dispute in the light most favorable to Isidro.
However, to the extent that Atkins decided to discount certain conflicting evidence, such as Isidros alibi, we need not accept such discounted evidence in the light most favorable to him. Were we
compelled to accept an alibi that a law officer has declined to credit,
the officer could never be deemed to have acted reasonably, and we
would eliminate any possibility of qualified immunity in a 1983
case. Instead, as we explain more fully below, to the extent that
Atkins discounted Isidros alibi or interpreted certain evidence, our
review must assess whether, in so doing, he acted in an objectively
reasonable manner, i.e., whether an objective officer could have reasonably believed there was probable cause for an arrest. Torchinsky
v. Siwinski, 942 F.2d 257, 260 (4th Cir. 1991).
III.
A.
Public officials engaged in the performance of discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from civil liability to the
extent "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or
constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have
known." Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982); Trulock v.
Freeh, 275 F.3d 391, 399 (4th Cir. 2001). The Supreme Court has
recognized that such immunity protects "all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law." Malley v. Briggs, 475
U.S. 335, 341 (1986). In particular, as we have spelled out with specificity, qualified immunity protects law officers from "bad guesses in
gray areas," and it ensures that they may be held personally liable
only "for transgressing bright lines." Maciariello v. Sumner, 973 F.2d
295, 298 (4th Cir. 1992).
In an appeal from the denial of a qualified immunity claim, our
first task is to ascertain whether the officers conduct violated a constitutional right. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001); see also
Clem v. Corbeau, 284 F.3d 543, 549 (4th Cir. 2002). If the answer to
GOMEZ v. ATKINS
11
this inquiry is "no," the analysis ends and the plaintiff cannot prevail.
If the answer is "yes," we must then consider whether, at the time of
the violation, the constitutional right was clearly established, that is,
"whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was
unlawful in the situation he confronted." Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201-02;
see also Taylor v. Waters, 81 F.3d 429, 433 (4th Cir. 1996) (quoting
Gordon v. Kidd, 971 F.2d 1087, 1093 (4th Cir. 1992)).
B.
The 1983 claim being pursued by Isidro is, in substance, that Sergeant Atkins violated his Fourth Amendment right not to be arrested
without probable cause. Isidro contends that, in seeking the arrest
warrant, Atkins ignored exculpatory evidence and made false statements in support of the warrant application. Isidro maintains that
Atkins sought the arrest warrant despite the fact that there were no
indicia of probable cause, and he further maintains that Atkinss misstatements initiated the improper prosecution. In our assessment of
whether Atkins is entitled to qualified immunity, however, the question is not whether there actually was probable cause for the murder
warrant against Isidro, but whether an objective law officer could reasonably have believed probable cause to exist. Torchinsky v. Siwinski,
942 F.2d 257, 260 (4th Cir. 1991). As the Supreme Court stated in
Malley v. Briggs, "[o]nly where the warrant application is so lacking
in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence
unreasonable will the shield of immunity be lost." (citations omitted).
475 U.S. at 344-45. In Anderson v. Creighton, the Court set forth the
underlying rationale for this favorable standard, observing that "[i]t is
inevitable that law enforcement officials will in some cases reasonably but mistakenly conclude that probable cause is present, and . . .
like other officials who act in ways they reasonably believe to be lawful[,] [they] should not be held personally liable." 483 U.S. 635, 641
(1987).
C.
In assessing whether probable cause existed when the murder warrant against Isidro was issued, we must "examine the totality of the
circumstances known to the officer at the time of the arrest." Taylor,
81 F.3d at 434 (citing United States v. Al-Talib, 55 F.3d 923, 931 (4th
12
GOMEZ v. ATKINS
GOMEZ v. ATKINS
13
942 F.2d 257, 261 (4th Cir. 1991). Our analysis of the record here
leads us inexorably to this conclusion. Isidro possessed a strong
motive to harm or kill Rickie Jean; he had the opportunity to commit
the crime; he was linked to the murder by physical evidence; and
Atkins was entitled to disbelieve his alibi. From a procedural standpoint, Atkins acted in a prudent manner, and his view of the probable
cause question passed muster in state court. We explain our analysis
more fully below.
A.
1.
First, both the Initial Investigation and the Follow-up revealed that
Isidro possessed a strong motive to injure Rickie Jean, and that he had
made prior threats to both harm and kill her. See Matter of Extradition
of Kraiselburd, 786 F.2d 1395, 1399 (9th Cir. 1986) (stating that "evidence of appellants motive and threats amply supports a finding of
probable cause"). Friends of Rickie Jean had informed Sergeant
Atkins that both she and Isidro were engaged in extramarital affairs.
According to a witness who spoke with Rickie Jean the night before
she met Isidro in Atlanta, "she was going to tell [Isidro] about her
relationship with [another man]."
Additionally, the Initial Investigation revealed, and Sergeant
Atkins was advised by several witnesses, that Isidro had repeatedly
physically abused and threatened to kill Rickie Jean. Isidro and Rickie
Jean were engaged in violent disputes over who should have custody
of their children, and Isidro had said "he would kill [Rickie Jean]
before she got the kids." As those "versed in the field of law enforcement" well know, see Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 232 (1983), it
is common for death threats to be made in domestic violence matters.
Unfortunately, they are too often carried out, resulting in serious
injury and death.
2.
Second, based on the information in the hands of Sergeant Atkins,
Isidro possessed an ample opportunity to commit the brutal murder of
14
GOMEZ v. ATKINS
his wife. He had departed from Atlanta as early as 10:00 a.m. on July
14, 1980, and the police did not arrive at the Gomez home until after
7:00 that evening. Isidro thus had a nine-hour window, before calling
the authorities, within which to travel from Atlanta to Fayetteville,
kill his wife, and then dispose of her body. Indeed, he admits being
at the murder scene by 6:00 p.m., at least an hour before he called the
authorities.6
3.
Third, while it was not overly compelling, some of the available
physical evidence linked Isidro to the crime. Although the LabCorp
DNA Report concluded that material found under Rickie Jeans fingernails did not match Isidros DNA profile, other blood evidence
could be reasonably construed to connect Isidro to the crime. Rickie
Jean had Type O blood, yet Type A blood (Isidros type) was found
in the master bedroom where she was murdered. More importantly,
Type A blood was found under Rickie Jeans fingernails. And, at the
time the warrant was issued, loose hairs found on Rickie Jeans body
were determined to be microscopically consistent with Isidros hair.
Finally, investigators at the crime scene believed that Isidro had conducted himself in a strange manner, and that he had failed to express
grief or remorse, despite the fact that his wife was missing and the
evidence indicated that foul play had occurred.
4.
Fourth, Sergeant Atkins was entitled to disbelieve Isidros alibi.
And to the extent that the alibi was deemed false, it was also reasonable for Atkins to view it as inculpatory. See United States v. MojicaBaez, 229 F.3d 292, 306 (1st Cir. 2000) (explaining that "false alibi
was itself evidence of guilt"). In both 1980 and 1995, Isidro claimed
that he drove no faster than the speed limit from Atlanta to Fayetteville, and that he did not arrive home until 6:00 p.m. on July 14. Thus,
Isidro maintained that he did not have a sufficient opportunity to murder Rickie Jean and move her body before the authorities arrived in
response to his 7:00 p.m. phone call. A reasonable officer, however,
6
GOMEZ v. ATKINS
15
16
GOMEZ v. ATKINS
According to Sergeant Atkins, he provided his Report to the magistrate, along with his affidavit, in seeking the arrest warrant. The Report
GOMEZ v. ATKINS
17
18
GOMEZ v. ATKINS