Corey Kendig was involved in a physical altercation outside a strip club in October 2020 that resulted in the death of Jeremy Jones. Kendig was arrested at the scene and charged with criminal homicide, aggravated assault, and reckless endangering of another person. Trooper Nicholas Stolar served as the lead investigator and filed an affidavit of probable cause to secure arrest warrants, but he did not include evidence suggesting Kendig acted in self-defense. Kendig was subsequently tried and acquitted by a jury on all charges. He then filed a civil lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution, arguing that Stolar violated his Fourth Amendment rights by omitting exculpatory self-defense evidence from the warrant affidavit. The District Court granted summary judgment to Stolar, ruling that self-defense is an affirmative defense irrelevant to the probable cause determination. The Third Circuit reviewed the case to determine whether omitting such evidence constitutes a constitutional violation and whether Trooper Stolar is protected by qualified immunity.
The Court of Appeals began by distinguishing between the general rule that officers need not investigate affirmative defenses and the specific duty to disclose known exculpatory evidence. The court noted that while officers are not required to resolve conflicting evidence or make complex legal determinations, they cannot ignore plainly exculpatory facts that a reasonable person would know a magistrate needs to see. The court addressed the specific question of whether evidence supporting an affirmative defense, such as self-defense, counts as exculpatory evidence. Relying on Pennsylvania law, the court found that self-defense negates the mens rea (mental state) required for the specific crimes Kendig was charged with. Consequently, the court adopted a new precedent: an officer must include facts establishing an affirmative defense in a probable cause affidavit only when the officer 'conclusively knows' that the defense negates the requisite mental state or excuses the conduct. In this case, the court reasoned that Trooper Stolar likely knew facts indicating Kendig acted in self-defense, and thus his affidavit was constitutionally deficient because it failed to present the magistrate with a complete picture. However, the court then applied the qualified immunity analysis. To overcome qualified immunity, Kendig had to show that the right was 'clearly established' at the time of the incident. The court found that no controlling authority in the Third Circuit or a robust consensus among other circuits had previously placed this specific obligation on officers. Because the law was not beyond debate, a reasonable officer could not have known that omitting the self-defense evidence was unconstitutional. Therefore, Stolar was entitled to immunity.
This decision creates a new standard for police officers in the Third Circuit regarding the content of probable cause affidavits. Officers must now ensure that if they possess facts they know conclusively establish a self-defense claim that negates the mental state of a charged crime, those facts must be included in the warrant application. However, the ruling does not impose liability on Trooper Stolar or other officers for past conduct where the law was not clearly established. The case is affirmed, meaning Stolar faces no civil damages, but the legal landscape for future investigations has shifted to require greater transparency regarding known affirmative defenses.