Introduction

Nevarez v. Dorris is a 2025 decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that resolves an interlocutory qualified-immunity appeal under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Julie Nevarez, on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor children, sued two Louisiana State Police troopers—Justin Leonard and Anthony Dorris—after they obtained search warrants for her home, her late husband’s vehicle, and her cell phone. The warrants were issued days after officers from local police agencies fatally shot her husband, Miguel Nevarez, in the front yard of their home.

Central issues:

• Whether the troopers’ affidavits supplied probable cause for warrants that sought “mere evidence” of a crime allegedly committed by a now-deceased suspect.
• Whether the troopers are entitled to qualified immunity because no clearly established precedent held that warrants are invalid solely because the suspect is dead.

Parties:

• Plaintiffs–Appellees: Julie Nevarez and her minor children, plus an unrelated plaintiff, De’Andre Willis.
• Defendants–Appellants: Troopers Anthony Dorris and Justin Leonard of the Louisiana State Police.

Summary of the Judgment

The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to Troopers Leonard and Dorris. The court did not decide whether the Fourth Amendment was violated; instead it held that no “clearly established” law put the troopers on notice that seeking warrants to search for evidence of a crime committed by a dead suspect was unlawful. The majority emphasized that controlling or persuasive precedent failed to identify the contours of a constitutional violation in that circumstance.

In a dissent, Judge Graves argued that established Fourth Amendment principles—particularly the “nexus” and “particularity” requirements for warrants—would have put a reasonably well-trained officer on notice that these warrants were deficient, regardless of the suspect’s death. The dissent would have affirmed the denial of qualified immunity.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

• Malley v. Briggs (475 U.S. 335, 1986): A warrant applicant may face § 1983 liability if the affidavit is so lacking in indicia of probable cause that a reasonable officer would know it was deficient.
• Franks v. Delaware (438 U.S. 154, 1978): Affiants who knowingly or recklessly include false statements in a warrant affidavit, or omit material facts, may trigger a hearing on probable cause.
• Warden, Maryland Penitentiary v. Hayden (387 U.S. 294, 1967): Distinguishes between searches for “fruits, instrumentalities, or contraband” (automatic nexus) and searches for “mere evidence,” which require a specific nexus to suspect criminal activity.
• Illinois v. Gates (462 U.S. 213, 1983): Establishes the “totality of the circumstances” test for probable cause.
• United States v. Leon (468 U.S. 897, 1984): “Good-faith” exception to the exclusionary rule, but only where affidavits provide a “substantial basis” for probable cause.
• Out-of-circuit, unpublished decisions (e.g., Coopshaw v. Figurski) were deemed non-binding and insufficient to qualify as “clearly established” law.

Legal Reasoning

1. Qualified Immunity Standard: Plaintiffs must show (a) a constitutional violation and (b) that the right was clearly established. The Fifth Circuit addressed only prong (b).
2. No Controlling Precedent: Neither the Supreme Court nor this circuit has squarely held that a deceased suspect’s status vitiates an otherwise fact-based probable-cause inquiry.
3. “Fair Warning” Absent: The court found no “controlling authority” or “robust consensus of persuasive authority” that the troopers would have known their conduct violated the Fourth Amendment merely because the suspect was deceased.
4. Particularity and Nexus: Although the dissent stressed that the affidavits lacked any nexus to evidence of “aggravated assault on a peace officer,” the majority viewed evaluation of that deficiency as a merits inquiry reserved for the district court after discovery.

Impact

Nevarez v. Dorris clarifies that, in the Fifth Circuit, law-enforcement officers enjoy qualified immunity when obtaining search warrants against deceased suspects unless there is a prior decision that plainly puts such conduct beyond the pale. Practically:

• Investigations of officer-involved shootings may proceed by warrant even if the prime suspect cannot be prosecuted.
• Plaintiffs must point to a case with closely matching facts to overcome qualified immunity in warrant-based § 1983 claims.
• The threshold for “clearly established law” in warrant disputes remains high; general pronouncements about probable cause will not suffice without factual similarity.
• The decision is likely to prompt future plaintiffs to press Franks challenges more vigorously—i.e., to show omissions or falsehoods in warrant affidavits that are material to probable cause.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Qualified Immunity: A doctrine that shields government officials from civil liability unless they violated a right that was “clearly established” at the time.
• Probable Cause: A reasonable belief, based on facts, that a crime has been or will be committed and that evidence of that crime is likely to be found in the place to be searched.
• Nexus Requirement: For “mere evidence” warrants, the affidavit must show why particular items sought are connected to specific criminal activity.
• Particularity Requirement: Warrants must describe with precision the place to be searched and the items to be seized—no “general warrants.”
• Franks Hearing: A proceeding where a judge considers whether an affidavit contains false statements or omissions made knowingly or recklessly, and whether excising them would deprive probable cause.
• “Clearly Established” Law: There must be a precedent with sufficiently similar facts so that a reasonable officer would know the conduct is unlawful.

Conclusion

Nevarez v. Dorris holds that no clearly established constitutional rule barred Louisiana State Police troopers from obtaining search warrants to investigate crimes committed by a now-deceased suspect. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity, leaving the merits of the Fourth Amendment challenges for further proceedings. This decision underscores the high bar for overcoming qualified immunity in warrant-based § 1983 claims: plaintiffs must tie alleged misconduct to a prior case with closely matching facts or allege omissions or false statements of the kind that would trigger a Franks hearing.