Katrina Walker v. Carl Weatherspoon, et al.

Starting with Gramenos v. Jewel Companies, Inc., 797 F.2d 432 (7th Cir. 1986), the Seventh Circuit has repeatedly reaffirmed its unique view that the statement of a single eyewitness “without further investigation or a narration of contrary evidence” invariably establishes probable cause. Id. at 440. The Seventh Circuit applied this rule here to withhold a damages remedy from petitioner, an innocent and blameless person, whose home had been searched based on a warrant procured by respondent Weatherspoon. Under the Seventh Circuit’s rule, respondent was permitted to rely on the tip of a first-time informant even though he could not corroborate the informant’s account and withheld these failures of corroboration from the judge who issued the search warrant. Aside from the Seventh Circuit, the lower federal courts abide by the teaching of this Court in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983), that the reliability of evidence used to support probable cause is “highly relevant.” Id. at 230. The Seventh Circuit justified its contrary rule in this case by stating that the police are not responsible for “the sorting of truth from fiction.” (App., infra, 7a.) The question presented is: May a police officer, who secures a search warrant on the uncorroborated tip of a first-time informant by withholding from the issuing judge facts that contradict the informant’s statements, avoid liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for searching the home of a blameless and innocent person because, in the words of the Seventh Circuit in this case, the police are not responsible for “the sorting of truth from fiction?”