X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Defendants-appellants Dayna Blazey, Stephanie Emmons, Hector Reveles, Angela McGown, Ernest Pedraza and Albert Eells appeal the district court’s denial of their motion for summary judgment on the grounds of immunity under federal and state law. They contend on appeal that they should not be held liable for coercing a confession from the minor plaintiff-appellee, LaCresha Murray, which ultimately led to her later-reversed conviction (and lengthy incarceration) for injury to a child. HOLDING:Reversed and rendered. LaCresha has not identified, and the court has not found, any evidence in the record to indicate that the state judge who presided over her juvenile trial failed to hear or was prevented from hearing all of the relevant facts surrounding her interrogation before deciding to admit her confession into evidence. Armed with all those facts, that judge nevertheless concluded that LaCresha was not “in custody” for purposes of Miranda or Texas law governing the interrogation of minors and ruled that her statement to the police was voluntary and admissible. Though the 5th Circuit disagrees with the trial court’s ruling, the court finds itself constrained to hold that this constituted a superseding cause of LaCresha’s injury, relieving the defendants of liability under 1983. This holding pretermits consideration of whether she suffered a violation of a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time, and whether a reasonable official should have known that he was violating that right. Accordingly, the court reverses the district court’s denial of qualified immunity for the defendants on LaCresha’s Fifth Amendment claim. The court also determines, by conducting the analogous state law inquiry under Texas law, that immunity bars LaCresha’s civil conspiracy claim. Because the court determines, for purposes of the Fifth Amendment inquiry, that the officers did not conceal from the Texas trial court any of the circumstances surrounding LaCresha’s interrogation and, therefore, that they did not cause the violation of her rights, the court holds that they acted “in good faith” for purposes of Texas official immunity. A reasonable officer, under the circumstances, could have believed that what he was doing would not violate a suspect’s Fifth Amendment rights, the court determines. If none of the officials could cause a violation of those rights, none could conspire to cause such a violation, particularly in view of the court’s determination that the officials properly presented evidence of their interrogation of LaCresha to the Texas trial court. Therefore, the defendants are entitled to immunity from LaCresha’s state law conspiracy claim. Further, the court’s determination that the defendants did not commit an actionable violation with respect to LaCresha’s Fifth Amendment violation bars a claim of civil conspiracy based on that violation, as “[g]enerally, if an act by one person cannot give rise to a cause of action, then the same act cannot give rise to a cause of action if done pursuant to an agreement between several persons.” Although LaCresha did suffer a violation of her constitutional rights, the court’s determination that none of the state officials could have proximately caused this violation means that none have committed a tortious act. Because the court concludes that LaCresha’s claims against these defendants are unavailing, the court reverses the district court, and remands for entry of summary judgment in favor of the defendants. OPINION:Wiener, J.; Wiener, Prado and Kinkeade, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.