First Circuit
Burke v. Town of Walpole, 405 F.3d 66, 85-88 (1st Cir. 2005) (“Given the clearly established prohibition on material omissions by officers central to an investigation from an arrest warrant application, and given Trooper McDonald’s knowledge of the crucial facts, we cannot say, as a matter of law, that a reasonable, similarly situated officer would feel free to communicate only inculpatory bite mark evidence to fellow officers seeking warrants on probable cause while withholding his knowledge of directly contradictory DNA results.”).
Eighth Circuit
Williams v. City of Alexander, Ark., 772 F.3d 1307, 1313 (8th Cir. 2014) (stating that “it is ‘clearly established that the Fourth Amendment requires a truthful factual showing sufficient to constitute probable cause’ in a sworn affidavit”).
Hunter v. Namanny, 219 F.3d 825, 831 (8th Cir. 2000) (stating that “it is clearly established that the Fourth Amendment requires a warrant application to contain a truthful factual showing of probable cause”).
Hulse v. Hall, 205 F.3d 1346, at *1 (8th Cir. 1999) (“Hulse’s and DeMars’s clearly established rights include the Fourth Amendment right to a truthful factual showing sufficient to establish probable cause. . . . If Hall’s verified complaint contained deliberate falsehoods or omitted certain information as Hulse and DeMars allege, Hall is only entitled to qualified immunity from § 1983 liability ‘if all the false and reckless portions of [the verified complaint] are corrected and the corrected [complaint] still supports a finding of probable cause.’”).
Hedges v. Poletis, 177 F.3d 1071, 1074 (8th Cir. 1999) (stating that “it is clearly established that the Fourth Amendment requires a truthful factual showing sufficient to constitute probable cause”).
Mueller v. Tinkham, 162 F.3d 999, 1003 (8th Cir. 1998) (“Clearly established Fourth Amendment law requires a warrant application to contain a truthful factual showing of probable cause—’truthful in the sense that the information put forth is ‘believed or appropriately accepted by the affiant as true.’’”).
Moody v. St. Charles County, 23 F.3d 1410, 1412 (8th Cir. 1994) (“It is clearly established that the Fourth Amendment requires a truthful factual showing sufficient to constitute probable cause before an arrest warrant can issue.”).
Burk v. Beene, 948 F.2d 489, 494 (8th Cir. 1991) (agreeing with the district court that “it was clearly established that the Fourth Amendment requires a truthful factual showing sufficient to constitute probable cause,” and that “Beene should have known that an affidavit that was not truthful would violate the accused’s constitutional rights”).