No. 23-1116

Daniel Creger v. Andrew Tucker, et al.

Lower Court: Sixth Circuit
Docketed: 2024-04-15
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived
Tags: 4th-amendment civil-rights fourth-amendment malicious-prosecution material-misrepresentation probable-cause section-1983 warrant-affidavit
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity FourthAmendment CriminalProcedure JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2024-05-30
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether state law citations showing lack of evidence for criminal charges is sufficient to establish lack of probable cause for a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 malicious prosecution claim

Question Presented (from Petition)

Questions Presented 1) Whether, in the context of evaluating a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution claim, state law citations showing that a rational juror could find that an officer lacked evidence as to one or more elements of the underlying state criminal charge(s) at issue is sufficient to establish a genuine issue of fact as to whether an officer lacked probable cause for the charge(s). 2) Whether an “undisclosed inference” presented by a law enforcement officer in a warrant affidavit as if it were a fact observed can constitute a material misrepresentation for purposes of invalidating the warrant resulting from the affidavit. 1

Docket Entries

2024-06-03
Petition DENIED.
2024-05-14
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/30/2024.
2024-05-09
Waiver of right of respondent Andrew Tucker, et al. to respond filed.
2024-04-10
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due May 15, 2024)

Attorneys

Andrew Tucker, et al.
Samantha Ashley BurnettHowell & Fisher, PLLC, Respondent
Samantha Ashley BurnettHowell & Fisher, PLLC, Respondent
Daniel Creger
Kyle Fite MothersheadRelentless Advocacy, PLLC, Petitioner
Kyle Fite MothersheadRelentless Advocacy, PLLC, Petitioner