Mink filed his civil rights complaint, asserting the warrant lacked probable cause and violated his Fourth Amendment right against illegal search and seizure. As Ms. Knox was responsible for reviewing and approving the warrant, the complaint was against her.
Knox initially succeeded in having Mink’s claim for damages dismissed by the district court, claiming absolute prosecutorial immunity. On appeal, the 10th Circuit held that Knox was not entitled to such immunity, and it remanded the case for consideration of Knox’s claim for qualified immunity. On remand, the district court granted Knox’s motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity. The 10th Circuit once again remanded as Mink had a plausible claim that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated.
On remand, the district court determined that because “no reasonable person would believe that the statements made in the editorials were said by Professor Peake in the guise of Junius Puke…,” It granted Mink’s motion for summary judgment and denied Knox’s motion. See: Mink v. Knox, Case No: 04-CV-00023 (U.S.D.C. Dist. Colorado, 2011).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Mink v. Knox
|Cite||Case No: 04-CV-00023 (U.S.D.C. Dist. Colorado, 2011)|