Technical Ordnance, Inc. v. United States (2001)

Cf. Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 278-79 , 114 S.Ct. 807 , 127 L.Ed.2d 114 (1994) (Ginsburg, J., concurring); Jefferson v. City of Omaha Police Dep’t, 335 F.3d 804, 806 (8th Cir.2003); Technical Ordnance, Inc., v. United States, 244 F.3d 641, 651 (8th Cir.2001). .

It is true that this court has held “[l]imited discovery is sometimes appropriate ‘to resolve the qualified immunity question.’” Soloman v. Petray, 795 F.3d 777, 791 (8th Cir. 2015) (quoting Technical Ordnance, Inc. v. United States, 244 F.3d 641, 647 (8th Cir. 2001)).

Ordnance, 244 F.3d at 650 (“Imprecision in the affidavit may show that [the agent] was careless in drafting some of the language, but careless error does not show reckless or intentional misconduct.”).

Ordinance, Inc. v. United States, 244 F.3d 641 , 649 (8th Cir. 2001) (“A law enforcement official is not required to include everything he knows about a subject in his affidavit, whether it is material to a finding of probable cause or not.”).

See De-Piero v. City of Macedonia, 180 F.3d 770 , 789 (6th Cir. 1999); Martinez v. Carr, 479 F.3d 1292, 1298-99 (10th Cir. 2007) (Gorsuch, J.); see also Technical Ordnance, Inc. v. United States, 244 F.3d 641, 651 (8th Cir. 2001) (“This circuit has never held that pretrial restrictions such as [a summons to appear in court] constitute a Fourth Amendment seizure.”); 3 Wayne R.

Limited discovery is sometimes appropriate “to resolve the qualified immunity question.” Technical Ordnance, Inc. v. United States, 244 F.3d 641, 647 (8th Cir.2001) (citing Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 646-47 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987)).

See Kurtz v. City of Shrewsbury, 245 F.3d 753, 758 (8th Cir.2001) (“Moreover, this court has uniformly held that malicious prosecution by itself is not punishable under § 1983 because it does not allege a constitutional injury.”); Technical Ordnance, Inc. v. United States, 244 F.3d 641, 650 (8th Cir.2001) (“The general rule is that an action for malicious prosecution does not state a claim of constitutional injury.”).

Even assuming that such falsehoods/omissions were deliberately or recklessly included in or excluded from the warrant application, “the Fourth Amendment is not violated if the [application] would still show probable cause after such falsehood^] or omission[s] [are] redacted or corrected.” Technical Ordnance, Inc. v. United States, 244 F.3d 641, 647 (8th Cir.2001).

Along the same lines, the First Circuit in Britton v. Maloney, 196 F.3d 24, 29-30 (1st Cir.1999), reasoned that “Terry cannot be read to mean that the issuance of a summons (any more than a testimonial subpoena or a call to jury duty) would constitute a seizure simply because it threatens a citizen with the possibility of confinement if he fails to appear in court.” See also Technical Ordnance, Inc. v. United States, 244 F.3d 641, 651 (8th Cir.2001) (“This circuit has never …

Technical Ordnance, Inc. v. United States, 244 F.3d 641, 652 (8th Cir.2001), ce rt. denied, 534 U.S. 1084 , 122 S.Ct. 819 , 151 L.Ed.2d 702 (2002).

Technical Ordnance, Inc. v. United States, 244 F.3d 641, 652 (8th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1084 (2002).

See, e.g., Joseph v. Allen, 712 F.3d 1222, 1228 (8th Cir. 2013) (“[A]n allegation of malicious prosecution without more cannot sustain a civil rights claim under § 1983.”); Kurtz v. City of Shrewsbury, 245 F.3d 753 , 758 (8th Cir. 2001) (stating that “malicious prosecution by itself is not punishable under § 1983 because it does not allege a constitutional injury.”); Technical Ordinance, Inc. v. United States, 244 F.3d 641 , 650 (8th Cir. 2001) (“The general rule is that an …

See, e.g., Joseph v. Allen, 712 F.3d 1222, 1228 (8th Cir. 2013) (“[A]n allegation of malicious prosecution without more cannot sustain a civil rights claim under § 1983.”); Kurtz v. City of Shrewsbury, 245 F.3d 753, 758 (8th Cir. 2001) (stating that “malicious prosecution by itself is not punishable under § 1983 because it does not allege a constitutional injury.”); Technical Ordinance, Inc. v. United States, 244 F.3d 641 , 650 (8th Cir. 2001) (“The general rule is that an a…

See, e.g., Joseph v. Allen, 712 F.3d 1222, 1228 (8th Cir. 2013) (“[A]n allegation of malicious prosecution without more cannot sustain a civil rights claim under § 1983.”); Kurtz v. City of Shrewsbury, 245 F.3d 753 , 758 (8th Cir. 2001) (stating that “malicious prosecution by itself is not punishable under § 1983 because it does not allege a constitutional injury.”); Technical Ordinance, Inc. v. United States, 244 F.3d 641 , 650 (8th Cir. 2001) (“The general rule is that an …

As the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals recently stated in Technical Ordnance, Inc. v. United States, 244 F.3d 641, 647 (8th Cir.2001): Even if a false statement or omission is included in an affidavit, the Fourth Amendment is not violated if the affidavit would still show probable cause after such falsehood or omission is redacted or corrected.

The remaining alleged omissions run headlong into the general principle that, “in a warrant affidavit, the government need only show facts sufficient to support a finding of probable cause.” United States v. Ozar, 50 F.3d 1440, 1445 (8th Cir. 1995); see also Technical Ordnance, Inc. v. United States, 244 F.3d 641, 649 (8th Cir. 2001) (“A law enforcement official is not required to include everything he knows about a subject in his affidavit, whether it is material to a findi…

Joseph v. Allen, 712 F.3d 1222 , 18 1228 (8th Cir. 2013) (citing Kurtz v. City of Shrewsbury, 245 F.3d 753 (8th Cir. 2001)); see Technical Ordnance, Inc. v. United States, 244 F.3d 641, 650 (8th Cir. 2001) (“The general rule is that an action for malicious prosecution does not state a claim of constitutional injury.”); see also Harrington v. City of Council Bluffs, 678 F.3d 676, 680-81 (8th Cir. 2012) (questioning whether “malicious prosecution is a constitutional violation …

Ordnance, Inc. v. United States, 244 F.3d 641 , 650 (8th Cir. 2001) (“The general rule is that an action for malicious prosecution does not state a claim of constitutional injury.”).

Ordnance, 244 F.3d at 650).

Ordnance, 244 F.3d at 650).

Ordnance, 244 F.3d at 650).

United States v. Anderson, 933 F.2d 612, 614 (8th Cir.1991); Technical Ordnance, Inc. v. United States, 244 F.3d 641, 649 (8th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1084 , 122 S.Ct. 819 , 151 L.Ed.2d 702 (2002).

United States v. Anderson, 933 F.2d 612, 614 (8th Cir. 1991); Technical Ordnance, Inc. v. United States, 244 F.3d 641, 649 (8th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1084 , 122 S.Ct. 819 , 151 L.Ed.2d 702 (2002).

Indeed, “[e]ven if a false statement or omission is included in an affidavit, the Fourth Amendment is not violated if the affidavit would still show probable cause after such falsehood or omission is redacted or corrected.” United States v. Gallo, 55 M.J. 418, 421 (C.A.A.F.2001)(quoting Technical Ordnance, Inc. v. United States, 244 F.3d 641, 647 (8th Cir.2001))(emphasis added).

J. at 7-10.) The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals “has never held that pretrial restrictions” — such as posting bond, making court appearances, and answering charges — “constitute a Fourth Amendment seizure.” Technical Ordnance, Inc. v. United States, 244 F.3d 641, 650-51 (8th Cir.2001), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 819 , 151 L.Ed.2d 702 (2002).

“To defeat a government official’s claim of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the official’s actions violated a statutory or constitutional right, that the right was clearly established at the time of the violation, and that a reasonable official would have known that his conduct violated that right.” Technical Ordnance, Inc. v. United States, 244 F.3d 641, 648 (8th Cir.2001) (citing Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 ); accord Sexton v. Martin, 210…

See Albright v. Oliver; 510 U.S. 266, 267 , 114 S.Ct. 807 , 127 L.Ed.2d 114 (1994) (holding plaintiff had not stated a claim, when he brought a substantive due process claim charging malicious prosecution by detective who initiated criminal proceedings against him); Technical Ordnance, Inc. v. United States, 244 F.3d 641, 650-51 (8th Cir.2001) (holding agent who allegedly intentionally or recklessly made misstatements or omissions in his warrant affidavit was entitled to qua…

The Eighth Circuit, in determining that the pre-Albright conduct of a Special Agent of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms could not have violated a clearly established constitutional right (in the context of a qualified immunity analysis), observed that “[t]his circuit has never held that pretrial restrictions such as [a summons and posting bond] constitute a Fourth Amendment seizure.” Technical Ordnance, Inc. v. United States, 244 F.3d 641, 651 (8th Cir.2001).

See United States v. Coleman, 349 F.3d 1077, 1084 (8th Cir.2003) (“A ‘minor discrepancy’ in the wording of an officer’s statement is not sufficient under Franks to establish that the officer acted deliberately or recklessly in making the statement.”); see also Technical Ordnance, Inc. v. United States, 244 F.3d 641, 649 (8th Cir.2001) (“A law enforcement official is not required to include everything he knows about a subject in his affidavit, *899 whether it is material to a…

Id.; see also Tech Ordinance Inc., v. United States, 244 F.3d 641 , 650 (8th Cir. 2001) (an action for malicious prosecution does not state a claim of constitutional injury).

Joseph v. Allen, 712 F.3d 1222, 1228 (8th Cir. 2013) (citing Kurtz v. City of Shrewsbury, 245 F.3d 753 (8th Cir. 2001); see Technical Ordnance, Inc. v. United States, 244 F.3d 641 , 650 (8th Cir.2001) (“The general rule is that an action for malicious prosecution does not state a claim of constitutional injury.”); see also Harrington v. City of Council Bluffs, 678 F.3d 676, 680-81 (8th Cir. 2012) (questioning whether “malicious prosecution is a constitutional violation at al…

See United States v. Gallo, 55 M.J. 418, 421 (C.A.A.F. 2001) (“[W]hen there are misstatements or improperly obtained information, we sever those from the affidavit and examine the remainder to determine if probable cause still exists.”) (citation omitted). “‘Even if a false statement or omission is included . . . the Fourth Amendment is not violated if the [remaining facts] would still show probable cause after such falsehood or omission is redacted or corrected.’” Id. (quot…

See Technical Ordnance, Inc. v. United States, 244 F.3d 641, 650 (8th Cir.2001) (“Appellees have not shown any genuine issue of material fact as to whether [the affiant] intentionally or recklessly made misstatements or omissions in his affidavit.

See Technical Ordnance, Inc. v. United States, 244 F.3d 641, 649 (8th Cir.2001) (“A law enforcement official is not required to include everything he knows about a subject in his affidavit, whether it is material to a finding of probable cause or not.”).