Complaining witness - police conspire to falsify evidence and testify falsely at trial - no immunity

Harris v. Roderick, 126 F.3d 1189 (9th Cir. 1997)

This facts of this case revolve around the now renowned fatal firefight at Ruby Ridge.

This case describes the details of two gunfights with multiple fatalities.

The first gunfight began when officers Cooper, Degan, and Roderick confronted Harris [a resident at the Weaver Ranch],  Weaver, Weaver's 14-year-old son [Sammy], and the Weaver family dog [Striker] at a "Y" in the road leading to Weavers cabin.  Striker was headed toward the cabin, was shot by Roderick. Sammy fired two shots in Roderick's direction, turned, and began to run home.  Cooper and Degan opened fire, Sammy was hit and severly injured in the arm holding the gun. Cooper then shot at Sammy after he was disarmed and while he was continuing to run away. The final shot hit Sammy in the back, killing him.

A "Hostage Rescue Team" was then dispatched, and the standard rules of engagement were rewritten and replaced with Special Rules of Engagement for Ruby Ridge. The new rules were to shoot any armed male anywhere near the Weaver cabin.

Later that evening, unaware of the presence of the "Hostage Rescue Team" agents who were stationed on a hill overlooking the cabin, Weaver, Sarah [Weavers daughter], and Harris, went to the shed where they had placed Sammy's body after cleaning and preparing him for burial. Horiuchi, a highly trained sniper shot Weaver in the back as he was opening the shed door. Weaver, Sarah and Harris turned and ran toward the front door of the cabin. Horiuchi shot two more rounds. Vicki, who was holding the door open with her infant daughter in her arms, was shot in the head, she died. Harris was wounded.

Following an eight day stand-off, Harris surrendered. He was taken to the hospital where he was treated for his injuries and underwent surgery. He was in intensive care for about twelve days.

Harris was then indicted for assault with a deadly weapon on Roderick, Cooper and Degan, as well as first degree murder of Degan, from the initial gun fire that errupted from the shooting of the family dog.  After a jury trial, he was acquitted on all charges.

Following his acquittal, Harris filed a Bivens action against several agents, including officers Cooper and Roderick, alledging that they had met and conspired to lie about the initial gunfire resulting in the death of Sammy and Degan, and they did so in order to conceal their wrongdoing. More specifically, Cooper and Roderick decided to say that Harris [a resident at Weaver Ranch] was the aggressor -- that he had not acted in self-defense. This made up story was told to other agents, reiterated during the official (federal) investigation, repeated at two (federal) preliminary hearings, before a (federal) grand jury, and at a (federal) jury trial.

Cooper and Roderick appealed from the denial of qualified immunity by the trial court. [Harris v. Roderick, (D.Idaho 1996) 933 F.Supp. 977]

The Issue on Appeal:

Cooper and Roderick claim that even if they were not initially entitled to immunity for their pretrial statements, any problems in that respect were cured when the grand jury indicted Harris, thus determining that there was probable cause.

Harris countered that the actions of Cooper and Roderick were those of a complaining witness, and they are not entitled to immunity. Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986). 

Held:

1.    The arguement for immunity states, in essence, that if a conspiracy to lie is so successful that on the basis of the lies a grand jury finds probable cause, the conspirators become immunized for the constitutional injury they have caused. In this regard the Court noted and adopted _____ Hand, a 5th Circuit decision. In Hand the court held a finding of probable cause that is "tainted by the malicious actions of the government officials [involved]" does not preclude a claim against the officials involved.

2.    That Cooper and Roderick were not entitled to immunity, notwithstanding the fact that law enforcement officers typically enjoy absolute immunity for false testimon. 

Reasoning:  This Court [9th Cir.] has never addressed the issue, whether Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986) [complaining witnesses who wrongfully bring about a prosecution generally are not immune, nor were they immune in common law.]  is an exception to Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325(1983) [police officers are generally entitled to absolute immunity for perjury committed in the course of official proceedings], but the Second, Fifth, Seventh, and Tenth Circuits have expressly found a Mally exception.

The court agreed with the other circuits, and found that if Cooper and Roderick functionally served as complaining witnesses who may be said to have initiated Harris's prosecution they are not entitled to absolute immunity for their false statements.

As indicated above, the court also adopted the findings in Hand ______, that a finding of probable cause that is "tainted by the malicious actions of the government officials [involved]" does not preclude a claim against the officials involved.


For these reasons the court affirmed denial of qualified immunity and remanded to the lower court for trial.