Laviage sued Fite for, among other things, false arrest, and the court held that Fite was not shielded by qualified immunity:
The law requires that Fite’s affidavit include enough facts to enable the magistrate to make an independent evaluation that there was probable cause to arrest Laviage. Fite could be liable if he made an intentional omission that results in a warrant being issued without probable cause….
Laviage sufficiently pleads that Fite intentionally wrote a misleading affidavit by excluding the software issues. Laviage was transparent with Fite. He acknowledged the deficiencies and made an effort to correct them. If the omitted fact was included, Laviage pleads factual content that allows the court to reasonably infer that the warrant would have lacked probable cause.
The law requires that Laviage “intentionally and knowingly” not file the reports. Laviage had no intent to conceal. He filed substantively identical reports with the City of Houston. Fite deliberately cross checked the Department’s reports with the City of Houston. Laviage kept Fite appraised of his efforts to correct the software issues but Fite persisted on a fishing expedition.
Taking the facts as plead, the Magistrate Judge could draw a reasonable inference from the circumstances that Laviage did not “intentionally and knowingly” fail to report to the Department. The jury’s decision to throw out the claims illustrates the baseless foundation for the initial charge.
Notes and links on “qualified immunity”.