Michalik v. Hermann

What This Case Is About

Michalik v. Hermann defines the limits of liability for officers involved in obtaining a search warrant. The Fifth Circuit held that only the officer who prepared or presented the warrant application can be liable under Malley v. Briggs — officers who merely provided information during the investigation are shielded by qualified immunity.

The Facts

In 1998, Officer Paul Toye of the New Orleans Police Department and Agent Eric Levis of the DEA began investigating a New Orleans drug ring. The investigation grew to include multiple law enforcement agencies. Trooper John Fitzpatrick of the Louisiana State Police became the case agent and was the sole affiant on the search warrant application for the home of Michael and Deborah Michalik in Chalmette, Louisiana. The warrant targeted the Michaliks’ home based on information that Michael’s step-brother, Gene Taglialavore, had stashed drugs there — but Taglialavore had not lived at the address since 1991 and his permanent address was in Nevada.

On November 18, 1998, at approximately 5:30 a.m., eight to ten officers executed the search warrant by forcibly entering the Michaliks’ home. The Michaliks were detained for approximately two hours while the house was searched. No drugs or evidence of illegal activity were found — not even after a second search with a drug dog. The Michaliks sued the officers involved in both procuring and executing the warrant.

What the Court Decided

The Fifth Circuit addressed three sets of claims:

Warrant procurement: The court reversed the denial of qualified immunity to Levis and Toye. Under Malley v. Briggs, an officer may be liable for applying for a warrant without probable cause. The court extended this to include an officer who actually prepares the warrant application. However, the court refused to extend liability to officers who merely provided information during the investigation. Since only Fitzpatrick prepared and presented the warrant, Levis and Toye were entitled to qualified immunity.

Search execution: The court reversed the denial of qualified immunity to Toye. Since Toye was not liable for procuring the warrant, he had no more knowledge of the probable cause deficiency than any other executing officer, all of whom had already been granted qualified immunity for reasonably relying on a facially valid warrant.

Forcible entry (knock and announce): The court dismissed this portion of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because material issues of fact existed about whether the officers knocked, how long they waited, and who entered first — factual disputes that prevented interlocutory appeal.

Why This Case Matters for Your § 1983 Case

• Target the right defendant on warrant claims: If you’re challenging a search warrant, your strongest claim is against the officer who prepared or presented the affidavit — not every officer who contributed information to the investigation.
• Executing officers can rely on facially valid warrants: Officers who simply execute a warrant they did not help prepare are generally protected by qualified immunity unless they had reason to know the warrant was defective.
• Knock-and-announce violations are fact-intensive: If officers breached your door without adequate announcement or waiting time, factual disputes about what happened will typically survive summary judgment and go to trial.
• The Malley framework is narrow: Liability for warrant deficiencies extends to the affiant and the preparer of the application, but not to every officer in the investigative chain. This limits your pool of defendants.
• Stale information can invalidate a warrant: The underlying problem — relying on years-old information to claim someone stashed drugs at a residence — illustrates how probable cause can go stale, potentially making the warrant invalid from inception.

Key Takeaway

When challenging an unlawful search, focus your § 1983 claims on the officer who actually prepared or signed the warrant affidavit — other officers who merely contributed information to the investigation are protected by qualified immunity, and executing officers can reasonably rely on a facially valid warrant they had no role in obtaining.