Puller v Baca

Puller sued Baca under 42 USC 1983 arguing Baca violated his 4th Amendment rights by submitting an application for arrest warrant with false information and omitted material facts. The district court granted summary judgment to Baca on qualified immunity grounds and the panel affirmed. It held that even replacing the allegedly false statement that Puller was part of an assault with the statement that he approached the victim with others, adding the equivocal statement of another witness that he wouldn’t beat anyone for fear of his grandmother and that one witness was drunk, the facts presented about a string of racially motivated robberies and evidence that Puller was part of a group which approached victim and led victim to reasonably believe that imminent lawless action was about to occur were sufficient to create probable cause to arrest Puller and thus Baca was entitled to immunity.