The beginning of the Court's opinion in Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (1986) describes a wiretapped phone call that led police to obtain a warrant against Plaintiff James Briggs:
"General conversation re. a party they went to last night . . . caller says I can't believe I was token [sic] in front of Jimmy Briggs -- caller states he passed it to Louisa . . . Paul says Nancy was sitting in his lap rolling her thing."
Police brought drug-possession charges against the plaintiff, but the grand jury declined to indict. Briggs then brought a Section 1983 claim for malicious prosecution, and the Court held that the claim was viable if the officer should have known "that his affidavit failed to establish probable cause, and that he should not have applied for the warrant."
It may not even be the point of the case, but does the Court's decision give any indication that the affidavit did or did not meet that standard?