Palmieri v. Clark County

Summary

The Nevada Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Clark County and Dawn Stockman in Judy Palmieri’s civil rights and tort action arising from an administrative search of her residence. The court held that Stockman was entitled to qualified immunity because Palmieri did not make the required substantial showing that Stockman knowingly or recklessly included false information in the warrant affidavit, and the affidavit otherwise established probable cause for the administrative search. The court also adopted the application of Franks v. Delaware to civil claims in the qualified-immunity context.

Holdings

1. Franks v. Delaware applies in the civil context to a § 1983 claim challenging the veracity of a search-warrant affidavit. To survive summary judgment on such a claim, the plaintiff must make a substantial showing of a deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth and establish that the warrant would not have issued without the challenged information.
2. Palmieri failed to make the substantial showing necessary to establish that Stockman knowingly or intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, included the informant's fictitious name in the affidavit.
3. An administrative search warrant based on specific evidence of a regulatory violation is supported by administrative probable cause when the warrant affidavit presents specific evidence sufficient to support a reasonable suspicion of a violation, evaluated under the totality of the circumstances.
4. The warrant affidavit established administrative probable cause because the informant's detailed, firsthand allegations of ongoing animal-welfare violations were sufficiently reliable and were corroborated by Stockman's verification of Palmieri's residence and review of prior animal-control records.
5. Stockman was entitled to qualified immunity because Palmieri failed to establish a constitutional violation or a genuine issue of material fact concerning a violation of clearly established constitutional rights.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Palmieri made the substantial showing required under Franks v. Delaware to challenge the veracity of the administrative search-warrant affidavit in a § 1983 action.
2. Whether the administrative search warrant was supported by probable cause sufficient to establish a reasonable suspicion that Palmieri was violating animal-health and welfare regulations.
3. Whether Stockman was entitled to qualified immunity on Palmieri's § 1983 claim.
4. Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment on Palmieri's Monell and state-law tort claims against Stockman and Clark County.

Disposition

affirmed