Civil Liability
of Law Enforcement Agencies & Personnel

     Back to list of subjects             Back to Legal Publications Menu

False Arrest/Imprisonment: Warrant

     The plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the defendant officer after he was arrested under a warrant for an assault committed by another man with the same first and last names. The defendant filled out an incident report about the assault but did not assist in applying for the arrest warrant. A federal appeals court overturned the trial court's denial of summary judgment in favor of defendant and held that defendant was entitled to summary judgment even when construing all the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff. The court reasoned that the connection between defendant's conduct and plaintiff's arrest was too attenuated to hold the deputy liable under the rule that the court reaffirmed or under any law that was clearly established at the time the defendant filled out the incident report. An officer who has provided information for the purpose of its being included in a warrant application has assisted in preparing the warrant application, and may be liable, but an officer who has not provided information for the purpose of its being included in a warrant application may be liable only if he signed or presented the application. Melton v. Phillips, #15-10604, 875 F.3d 256 (5th Cir. 3017).

     Because ample facts supported probable cause for issuance of an arrest warrant for possession of marijuana even without the officer’s alleged inaccuracy in testimony at a probable cause hearing, the officer was entitled to qualified immunity for allegedly violating the plaintiff’s constitutional rights by deliberately or recklessly giving partially inaccurate testimony.  Odom v. Kaizer, #16-2681, 864 F.3d 920 (8th Cir. 2017).

     A seven-year-old boy with psychological problems told his mother that his school counselor sexually assaulted him. A social worker talked to the boy and contacted a police detective. The detective and social worker then interviewed 32 other students in contact with the counselor, none of whom disclosed inappropriate conduct. A medical exam of the boy revealed no evidence of abuse. The detective obtained a warrant for the counselor’s arrest, but failed to interview employees who worked near the counselor’s office, although the sexual abuse allegedly occurred there, with the door ajar and others able to see inside.  Charges were later dismissed. In the counselor’s federal civil rights lawsuit, the jury found that the detective lacked probable cause to secure an arrest warrant, that facts misrepresented in or omitted from his affidavit and warrant application were material, and that the misrepresentations or omissions were done intentionally, deliberately, or with reckless disregard for the truth. It awarded $589,000 in compensatory and $500,000 in punitive damages.

     A federal appeals court affirmed, rejecting the detective’s arguments concerning failure to instruct the jury adequately about qualified immunity. A reasonable juror could find that the officer's conduct involved reckless or callous indifference to the counselor's federally protected rights, and the punitive damages award was not unconstitutionally excessive. Wesley v. Campbell, #16-5431, 2017 U.S. App. Lexis 13067, 2017 Fed. App. 157P (6th Cir.).

     The two plaintiffs were arrested for an accusation of fraud that was mistakenly reported and almost immediately retracted. One of them was also briefly incarcerated. They sued a police officer and prosecutor who, at different stages of the criminal case, allegedly learned that no crime had taken place and yet failed to take any steps to withdraw an arrest warrant. Because there was no established duty to act under these circumstances, the officer was entitled to qualified immunity. Further, under Virginia state law, only the prosecutor, rather than the officer, could move to dismiss an issued arrest warrant. The prosecutor was entitled to absolute immunity, since the decision whether or not to withdraw an arrest warrant was intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process. State law claims, however, were dismissed in federal court without prejudice to the ability of the plaintiffs to reassert them in state court. Safar v. Tingle, #16-1420, 2017 U.S. App. Lexis 10114 (4th Cir.).

     A 15-year-old girl walking home encountered a man who demanded that she get in his car. He sped away when she refused and told him she was calling the police. Two officers responded to her call and took down her description of the car as a red, four-door sedan with a Pennsylvania license plate bearing the letters ACG, driven by a white male with dark hair, around 35 years old. The next day, she told her mother, who was driving her home, that a red car they encountered was the one that had stopped her the day before. Its license plate was JDG4817. They followed the car to a parking lot and saw the driver. The girl’s mother drove her to the police station. Officers identified the car as belonging to a man, obtained his license photo, and created a photo array. The girl identified him, and an officer went to the parking lot and saw the car, a three-door coupe. The officer drafted an affidavit of probable cause, and a magistrate issued an arrest warrant. The man was charged with, but acquitted of, luring a child into a motor vehicle, stalking, corruption of a minor, and harassment. A federal appeals court reversed a grant of qualified immunity for the officer in a false arrest lawsuit, noting his omission of information about the license plate and vehicle description discrepancies from the affidavit. Andrews v. Scuilli, #15-3393, 853 F.3d 690 (3rd Cir. 2017).
     A female university student accused a male student of having sexually assaulted her in his dorm room. University police officers investigated and filed a criminal complaint for simple assault, harassment, and disorderly conduct, with an affidavit of probable cause. A warrant was issued and he was arraigned, but the charges were later dropped. He sued, claiming violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. A federal appeals court upheld summary judgment for the defendants. There was evidence corroborating in large part the female student's story and there was a period of time during which no one disputed that the two were alone together in the dorm room. Accordingly, even taking into account certain facts allegedly recklessly omitted from the affidavit of probable cause (certain witness statements, including about the conversations between the two students before they entered the dorm room), a reasonable jury could not find a lack of probable cause. Dempsey v. Bucknell Univ. #15-1328, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 15334 (3rd Cir.).
     A woman who told officers that she would need to speak to her son who was in the other room in response to their statement that they had a warrant for his arrest did not obstruct justice and it was objectively unreasonable for them to seek a warrant for her arrest. In fact, she told her son not to flee and that he had to go with the officers. The record contained no indication of any action by the officers that the woman could be said to have "obstructed." The officers were not immune from suit because they obtained an arrest warrant when their decision to request a warrant in these circumstances was outside the range of professional competence expected of the officers. Graham v. Gagnon, #15-1521, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 13672 (4th Cir.).
     A narcotics investigation known as "Operation Blue Knight" was carried out over a two-year period by the FBI and Chicago Police Department. Towards the end, an officer applied for dozens of arrest warrants. Other officers had observed the plaintiff arrestee and his brother sell heroin to an informant. The observations were in a comprehensive report that the officer used as the basis for his arrest warrant application. The arrest was carried out, but the charges were later dropped, and the arrestee sued. Upholding the dismissal of the lawsuit, a federal appeals court held that the written application for the warrant, supported by his oral testimony about the investigative report or surveillance of the drug deal provided probable cause for the arrest. White v. City of Chicago, #15-1280, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 13326 (7th Cir.).
     "Exotic dancers" were arrested on charges ranging from prostitution to assault to witness intimidation or drug distribution. They claimed that their arrests violated the warrant clause of the U.S. Constitution because the sole evidence the court clerks received before issuing arrest warrants consisted only of the officers' conclusory statements that they had committed the offenses and the clerks lacked the power to issue arrest warrants to begin with. Affirming the dismissal of their false arrest lawsuit, a federal appeals court noted that they failed to allege that the officers arrested them without probable cause--a key allegation needed to show an unconstitutional arrest.
Graves v. Mahoning County, #15-3175, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 8697, 2016 Fed. App. 0113P (6th Cir.).
     A man claimed that he was wrongfully incarcerated based on a felony arrest warrant for a man with the same first and last name, the same birth date, and a different middle name. While his initial arrest for DUI was valid, the warrant under which he was subsequently held described a man nine inches shorter and 40 pounds lighter, and even a cursory comparison should have led officers to question whether the person described in the warrant was the plaintiff. The defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity. Garcia v. Cnty. of Riverside, #13-56857, 811 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 2016).
      A man encountered two men fishing on a bridge near his property and fired a shotgun at them from his deck when they failed to identify themselves. A verbal altercation ensued and both sides called the police. The fishers told a deputy that the man had shot at them while he claimed to have fired away from them. The deputy's supervisor, informed of this, ordered him to seize the shotgun and to draft a complaint stating that there was probable cause hat the property owner had unlawfully used a shotgun. The deputy later admitted that he did not think that the use of the shotgun violated Missouri law. A prosecutor obtained an arrest warrant, and probable cause was found at a preliminary hearing, but the arrestee was acquitted. A federal appeals court found that, under these circumstances, the deputy was entitled to qualified immunity on a false arrest claim, as the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, did not show a violation of his constitutional rights. The deputy made no false statement as the assertion that the plaintiff had committed an offense was not a false statement of fact, but a legal conclusion. Bowden v. Meinberg, #14-3074, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 14940 (8th Cir.).
     A man was arrested in his girlfriend's apartment nine days after he committed a home robbery. He was convicted of various criminal charges and sentenced to 40 years in prison, but sued sheriff's deputies, claiming that their arrest of him violated the Fourth Amendment. The fact that there was an outstanding arrest warrant for the plaintiff was all that the detectives needed to be justified in making the arrest, even though they didn't know about the existence of the warrant, a federal appeals court held. Factual issues about whether the girlfriend consented to the detectives entry into the apartment or merely did not object were irrelevant when they did not enter until they saw the plaintiff and therefore knew that they had found their robbery suspect. Cook v. O'Neill, #14-1641, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 16838 (7th Cir.).
     After a neighbor placed a deteriorated unlicensed trailer on his property, a man fixed and painted it, believing it to be abandoned. The trailer later disappeared, and then was found by a detective in a ditch. The detective suspected that the property owner had stolen the trailer and used it to transport lawn mowers stolen from another man's property during a burglary. The detective obtained warrants for the collection of DNA samples and fingerprints, and a search of the suspect's property. Despite the fact that no evidence implicating the suspect in any crime was found during the search, the detective and another detective who assisted him told an assistant state's attorney that he should be charged. The prosecutor swore out an affidavit for an arrest warrant, despite having no personal knowledge, relying on the detectives. After charges were dismissed, the arrestee sued the prosecutor and detectives. The prosecutor was not protected by absolute prosecutorial immunity as he acted as a witness rather than a state advocate in swearing to the truth of the facts used to obtain the warrant. The prosecutor and the two detectives were also not entitled to qualified immunity from false arrest claims, as the lawsuit complaint permitted a reasonable inference that they all furnished false information in order to obtain the arrest warrant. Olson v. Champaign County, #12-3742, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 7143 (7th Cir.).
     After charges concerning suspected involvement in a racially motivated attack were dropped against an arrestee, he sued the detective who applied for and obtained the arrest warrant, claiming that he had both omitted material information and supplied false information, so the warrant lacked probable cause. A federal appeals court, upholding a grant of qualified immunity to the detective, found that the modified affidavit, even without the complained of omissions and alleged false information, still established probable cause to believe that the arrestee had committed a bias-motivated crime, involvement in an attack by a group of African-American gang members on a Caucasian man, even if he did not himself hit the man. Puller v. Baca, #13-1156, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 4572 (10th Cir.).
      A man was arrested for murder based on an investigating police sergeant's affidavit for a warrant. He was subsequently convicted but the conviction was later overturned on appeal for insufficient evidence. He sued the sergeant for malicious prosecution, claiming that the affidavit for the warrant purposefully distorted a statement by a witness who saw a car containing two young men with light brown hair like the plaintiff's drive by the murdered man's home not long before the murder. A federal appeals court held that the sergeant was entitled to qualified immunity as there was ample evidence of probable cause for the arrest, including ballistics evidence showing that the plaintiff's gun, found in a duffle bag with hairs similar to his, was the murder weapon. There was no evidence that the sergeant had deliberately or recklessly misrepresented anything in the affidavit. Newman v. Twp. of Hamburg, #14-1455, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 23366 (6th Cir.).
    Detectives who were monitoring calls from a call center as part of an investigation of drug trafficking believed that a woman they knew was the voice making calls directing customers to drug distribution houses and obtained an arrest warrant for her based on this and an allegation that she had been seen at the houses. All charges against her were later dismissed after it was concluded by prosecutors that the wrong person had been arrested. Municipal liability claims were properly rejected as the plaintiff stated no basis for them other than the mere employment of the detective who obtained the warrant. Claims against the state and its employees in their official capacity were barred as they were not "persons" for purposes of a federal civil rights lawsuit. After the plaintiff abandoned her federal claims against the detective, remaining state law claims including false arrest and imprisonment were properly remanded to state court. Ball v. City of Indianapolis, 13-1901, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 14234 (7th Cir.).
     A man had the same first and last name as another man sought under two arrest warrants. He was first arrested by mistake under a 1985 arrest warrant and released, and then mistakenly arrested under a 1989 arrest warrant and detained for approximately a month. The officers' belief that the plaintiff was the true subject of the warrants was not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, and his detention did not violate due process. The 1989 warrant had both a name and a detailed description of the suspect sought. The plaintiff failed to show that the county had a policy or custom of failing to include more detailed descriptions on arrest warrants to avoid the risk of repeated misidentifications. As to state law claims, the defendant employees involved could invoke statutory immunity under California law. Summary judgment for all defendants was granted. Rivera v. County of Los Angeles, #11-57037, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 4646 (9th Cir.).
     An animal control officer was not entitled to qualified immunity for obtaining an arrest warrant lacking evidentiary support and using it to arrest a woman for allegedly withholding information about rabid animals. Damages of $2,943.60 were properly awarded, but an award of attorneys' fees was reduced from $322,340.50 to $100,000, since the trial court overstated the extent of the plaintiff's success. McAfee v. Boczar, #13-1356, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 24709 (4th Cir.).
     City police who had a valid arrest warrant for a man with the same name as the plaintiff wanted for drug dealing could not be held liable under Nevada state law for mistakenly arresting him on 11 different occasions over a two year period, despite the fact that he was two years younger than the wanted suspect, had a tattoo on his left arm not mentioned in the warrant and had a different hair color. The incidents only stopped when the true suspect was arrested. The Nevada Supreme Court, while expressing sympathy for the plaintiff, said officers with a valid warrant should not have to choose between releasing a person closely meeting the warrant's description or detaining him and facing possible liability. Gonzalez v. Los Vegas Metro Police, #61120, 2013 Nev. Unpub. Lexis 1815.
     Officers who arrested and detained a woman for two days for investigative interrogation under a material witness warrant were not entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity. Even if the officers were following a prosecutor's instructions, execution of the warrant was a police function rather than a prosecutorial function under the New York state material witness statute and the explicit terms of the warrant itself. Further, the officers actively avoided a court-ordered material witness hearing and their failure to present the arrestee before a court left her with no means of then contesting her detention. Simon v. City of New York, #11-5386, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 17016 (2nd Cir.).
     Deputies, after questioning a woman at her workplace, effectively seized her when one of them gestured for her to stay seated because they had found out that there was an outstanding civil immigration warrant for her. This violated the Fourth Amendment, as they needed the express authorization or direction of federal immigration authorities to make such a seizure, but both they and the sheriff were entitled to qualified immunity, since it was not clearly established law that state and local law enforcement officers may not detain or arrest a person on the basis of a civil immigration warrant. Such qualified immunity did not apply to municipal defendants, however.
Santos v. Frederick County Board, #12-1980, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 16335 (4th Cir.).
     A man who was mistakenly held in custody for 11 days under a bench warrant issued for another person sued the defendant counties for vicarious liability for the actions of the sheriff's deputies who allegedly falsely imprisoned him. An intermediate California appeals court found that the trial court improperly ruled for the defendant counties, relying on federal civil rights caselaw under which vicarious liability claims were not allowed. Under California state law, the counties could be sued based on vicarious liability.
Rodriguez v. County of Los Angeles, #B241049, 2013 Cal. App. Lexis 525.
     A woman claimed that sheriff's deputies arrested her under a warrant issued without probable cause and in violation of her equal protection rights, doing so only because she was the wife of a man believed to have stolen a horse. Rejecting these claims, a federal appeals court found that the deputies, from the woman's own interaction with them, had reason to believe that she shared responsibility for the alleged wrongful possession of and refusal to surrender the horse. Williamson v. Curran, #09-3985, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 6769 (7th Cir.).
     U.S. Marshals teamed up with local police to conduct a roundup of fugitives in 24 states that resulted in 10,733 arrests. One of the arrestees turned out not to be the arrestee sought, but someone else with the same name, due to a clerical error by a city's police department. That arrestee's lawsuit against the U.S. government was barred under the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C.S. § 2680(a). Officers making the arrest did not have the arrest warrant in their possession at the time the arrest was made, and were not required to have it under the city's existing arrest policy. The plaintiffs also failed to produce any evidence that the officers intended to falsely arrest the arrestee, so a law enforcement exception to the intentional tort exception of the FTCA did not apply. Milligan v. United States, # 10-5615, 670 F.3d 686 (6th Cir. 2012).
     A sheriff did not violate a suspect's clearly established rights by requesting his mental health care hospital records as part of the investigation as to whether he was the sniper who shot down a police helicopter, or was legally entitled to possess weapons. The records pertained to his post-traumatic stress disorder. The sheriff was entitled to qualified immunity for requesting the hospital records under the circumstances. Officers did have probable cause to arrest him under a warrant obtained after learning that he was a trained marksman who had served as a marksmanship instructor in the military, had made suspicious statements about the police helicopter being a "great target," he led police on a 100-mile-per-hour chase when they attempted to follow him, and they found a recently concealed rifle shell casing lying at the bottom of his trash can and a rifle during a search of his home conducted with a search warrant. Charges were later dismissed when ballistics showed that his rifle could not have fired the shot that downed the helicopter. The affidavit for the arrest warrant was sufficiently supported by probable cause despite the fact that a hole in a window in the man's house turned out to have been made by a golf ball rather than a bullet, and that a ballistics expert's advice was mistaken. Kerns v. Bader, #09–2273, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 25210 (10th Cir.).
     A caretaker at a daycare center tried to gently shake a baby when he showed no signs of life, and then administered CPR. The baby died. The caretaker was arrested once without a warrant, questioned, and then arrested a second time under a warrant, and charged with murder, but never tried on that charge. The second arrest of the caretaker violated the Fourth Amendment, as there was then evidence that the mother had allegedly shaken the baby days before and threatened to kill it, likely causing the several days of lethargy and fever the baby experienced before stopping breathing. The mild shaking of the baby by the daycare worker was a justified precursor to doing CPR. There were also allegations that the principal arresting officer was romantically interested in the mother, which could form part of the basis for a malicious prosecution claim. After the first arrest, when the arrestee phoned a lawyer, all questioning should have stopped, but did not, which could form the basis for an unlawful interrogation claim. Aleman v. Village of Hanover Park, # 10-3523,   2011 U.S. App. Lexis 23241 (7th  Cir.).
     A man claimed that his wife and son conspired together to have him arrested for, among other things, illegal possession and sale of Oxycontin, knowing that he lawfully possessed the drug as prescription medication for various illnesses. During execution of an arrest warrant for domestic violence and firearms offenses, a search was conducted during which a quantity of the drug was seized. He was released from custody when the status of the drug as his legal medication was shown. There was nothing in the arrest warrant, however, which would have caused a reasonable officer to question whether the warrant was valid, Moore v. City of Desloge, #10-2095, 647 F.3d 841 (8th Cir.).
     The U.S. Supreme Court held that former Attorney General Ashcroft was entitled to qualified immunity in a lawsuit by a man detained after the events of 9/11/2001 under a federal material witness statute. The plaintiff claimed that the government had a policy of using this statute to detain innocent persons suspected of terrorism without charges.  The Court held that the objectively reasonable arrest and detention of a material witness pursuant to a validly obtained warrant cannot be challenged as unconstitutional on the basis of allegations that the arresting authority had an improper motive. Ashcroft did not violate clearly established law and thus is entitled to qualified immunity because, at the time of the arrest, not a single judicial opinion had held that pretext could render an objectively reasonable arrest pursuant to a material-witness warrant unconstitutional. Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, #10-98, 2011 U.S. Lexis 4021.
     A man arrested and prosecuted for arson sued a police sergeant for allegedly failing to disclose purportedly materially exculpatory evidence, including a false identification by a witness stating that the accused was "gloating" at the arson scene in the months following the crime. The court ruled that even if the officer falsified and omitted the evidence in question when applying for the warrant, the corrected report and warrant application absent this evidence would still have had facts sufficient to provide probable cause for the arrest. Smith v. Almada, #09-55334, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 5692 (9th Cir.).
     A man arrested for violating an injunction against "dating violence, which prohibited him from contacting a woman in person or on the phone, or using another person to contact her, claimed that he was arrested and prosecuted without probable cause. Evidence showed, however, that the woman, who was a realtor, received four calls from someone named "Lisa," purporting to be interested in real estate, but that when she returned the calls, she heard the plaintiff's voice saying "Got Her!," along with cheering and laughter, and other evidence of possible violations. Arguable probable cause existed for the obtaining of a capias warrant for the arrest. Because the plaintiff's case was found to be frivolous, the defendants were properly awarded attorneys' fees. Angiolillo v. Collier County, #10-10895, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 17762 (Unpub. 11th Cir.).
     A man went to retrieve his car, which had been impounded when he parked near his work site without a required permit. He was then arrested because his New York state ID number matched that of a suspect sought on a "John Doe" warrant. Held for two days, he was released when it was discovered that the warrant was for someone else who was erroneously issued the same state ID number. Under the circumstances, the arresting officer could reasonably have believed that the warrant was valid and was for the plaintiff, so he was entitled to qualified immunity. Caceres v. The Port Authority of New York & Jersey, #09-3064, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 1929 (2nd Cir.).
     A trial judge acted erroneously in granting summary judgment to the defendants in a false arrest lawsuit. If the crime victim's deposition was true, she did not identify the arrestee as her attacker, but another person, which would mean that the officer's arrest warrant affidavit falsely indicated that the arrestee had been identified from a photo array. Lawson v. Veruchi, #10-1318, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 1783 (7th Cir.).
     The trial court properly dismissed a false arrest lawsuit by a man mistakenly arrested and detained for 37 days before it was determined that he was not the parole violator sought in the arrest warrant. The suspect actually sought had the same name, day and month of birth, and the same first three digits of his Social Security number as the arrestee. The arrestee's continued detention after his arrest was reasonable, particularly as he gave inconsistent statements regarding whether he was or was not the individual named in the warrant. Atkins v. City of Chicago, #09-2998, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 1459 (7th Cir.).
     A man arrested for armed robbery under an arrest warrant claimed that the officer failed to conduct an adequate investigation before seeking the warrant. He claimed that the robbery victim was not a credible witness, as he waited three days before reporting the alleged robbery, and said that the robbery took place at the home of himself and his girlfriend, even though they were actually homeless. But the officer indicated that he did not know that the victim was homeless, and had no reason to doubt his story. As any failure to further investigate before seeking an arrest warrant amounted to, at most, negligence, the plaintiff's claims were rejected. Shadley v. Grimes, #10-60250, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 25870 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
     Police received a phone call stating that a bar and grill was going to "blow tonight," which they interpreted as a bomb threat. They suspected that the call had been made by a man who had previously complained about noise coming from the business. Over two months later, an arrest warrant was issued for this man based on alleged similarities between the voice of the recorded bomb threat and the man's voice, and his frequent complaints about the bar's noise. Charges were later dismissed, however, after the dispatchers who had received the bomb threat could not identify the arrestee's voice. The appeals court upheld the trial court's determination that, after "problematic" statements in the warrant affidavit concerning the basis for the officer's alleged identification of the arrestee's voice were excluded, the remainder of the affidavit did not support probable cause. The plaintiff made the required showing that the officer "engaged in deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth" concerning an "unprofessional" voice identification, so that the false arrest claim could go forward. Wolgast v. Richards, #08-1724, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 16458; (Unpub. 6th Cir.).
     An officer had arguable probable cause to obtain a warrant to arrest a woman for making terroristic threats based on the alleged victim's statement that she had said that her son would not shoot him if he would release a car that was the subject of a dispute, which could be interpreted as a threat of violence. Williams v. Taylor-Lee, #10-11016, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 19981 (Unpub. 11th Cir.).
     Based on an identification of a suspect from a photo array by a store security guard who had witnessed an armed robbery, a detective sought and obtained a warrant to arrest the suspect. Witnesses said that the robber had braided hair, as did the suspect in the photo included in the array. While searching the arrestee's residence, officers found photos dated just several weeks prior to the robbery in which the suspect had short, unbraided hair. Despite this discrepancy, there was probable cause to seek the warrant and make the arrest based on the witness's identification. White v. Brown, #10-2502, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 22933 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
     Even after making changes in an arrest warrant affidavit to correct what the arrestee claimed was false and omitted information, there was still probable cause to support the plaintiff's arrest for arson of a furniture store, which resulted in $2.8 million in damages. The suggested changes did not support the conclusion that "a neutral magistrate would not have issued the warrant" had these changes been known. The omitted facts included descriptions of suspects in four previous dumpster fires behind the store, none of whom matched the arrestee, and the store owner's "demonstrably false" statement that she had seen him "gloating" at the crime scene sometime after the fire. The fact remained that gasoline containing bottles which had been placed on a table inside the window of the store contained numerous gasoline soaked pieces of mail addressed to the arrestee or his wife over a five year period of time, which the arrestee could not explain, and there were also facts about a dispute he had with the store owner. The fact that juries in two trials of the arson case were not able to reach a unanimous verdict against the arrestee did not alter the fact that there had been probable cause for his arrest. Smith v. Almada, #09-55334, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 21496 (9th Cir.).
     Before officers executed an arrest warrant against a man for unpaid child support, they confirmed the warrant's validity. The warrant, however, had actually been quashed in a "minute entry" by the court, but no record of that order had yet reached the sheriff's office, so the warrant's validity was confirmed. The officers proceeded with the arrest, despite the arrestee's protests that the warrant had been quashed. He was not released until the next day. Upholding summary judgment for the officers, the court ruled that unless the warrant was invalid on its face, the defendants had no duty under the Constitution to independently attempt to determine its validity. Reasonable officers could disagree on whether they were required to investigate further when confronted by the arrestee's claim that he had a certified copy of the minute entry quashing the warrant. Ochser v. Funk, #1 CA-CV 09-0141, 2010 Ariz. App. Lexis 156.
     In a case involving a prosecution for a number of sexual offenses, the California Supreme Court approved the use of a "John Doe, unknown male" arrest warrant, describing the wanted person by his unique 13-loci deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) profile. The warrant was issued in this manner, as the statute of limitations for attempting to prosecute the offenses would have otherwise been exceeded.. Peo. v. Robinson, #S158528, 47 Cal. 4th 1104, 224 P.3d 55 (Cal. 2010).
     A police officer did not act outside of his discretionary authority when he obtained an arrest warrant for the plaintiff from a judge and executed it with the cooperation of a deputy sheriff. While there may have been some discrepancies in the arrest warrant, the plaintiff failed to show that any information presented by the officer in the affidavit was false. A reasonable officer would not have questioned whether there was probable cause to arrest the plaintiff for methamphetamine possession simply because there was a date discrepancy in the warrant. Pair v. City of Parker Police Dept., #09-15073, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 12384 (Unpub. 11th Cir.).
     Officers did not act with reckless or deliberate disregard for the truth to make materially false statements resulting in the issuance of an arrest warrant for the plaintiff. One officer had no reason to believe that a color photo array of suspects presented to witnesses was suggestive, and despite any equivocation by a witness in their identification of the suspect, a second officer had no reason to doubt the veracity of the information he reported. There were no false statements in a warrant affidavit submitted by a third officer. Matthews v. Thomas, #09-1932, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 13537 (Unpub. 4th Cir.).
     Police officers, seeking a person named "Jacquelyn O. Walker" sought under a capias warrant issued in a civil case, arrested a person with a similar name, "Jacquelyn R. Walker," and took her to a jail where she was held for an extended period of time. They allegedly failed to follow departmental procedures requiring officers to carefully verify the identity of persons taken into custody on capias warrants, in order to avoid such problems. In a false arrest lawsuit, an intermediate Ohio appeals court rejected defenses of sovereign immunity for the defendant city and qualified immunity for the defendant arresting officers. It found that the alleged ignoring of departmental procedures could be "reckless or wanton misconduct," constituting an exception to the otherwise applicable state immunity statutes. Claims against the county sheriff's department, however, were dismissed, as it followed normal jail booking procedures. Walker v. City of Toledo, #09-1004, 923 N.E.2d 688 (Ohio App. 2009).
     The fact that a prosecutor and judge had approved the issuance of an arrest warrant did not insulate a deputy from liability for signing the affidavit, which was the basis of the warrant. Under the warrant, the plaintiff was arrested on charges of engaging in a fraudulent land sale, but he claimed that, at the time he signed the affidavit, the deputy had evidence that clearly showed that the crime was not committed by him, but allegedly by another man with the same first and last name. Fletcher v. Burkhalter, #09-7003, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 10480 (10th Cir.).
     A detective investigating the theft of gas station gift cards from a school learned that an individual with the plaintiff's same name had stolen the cards, and, viewing a videotape of someone using the gift cards, believed that the person shown was the plaintiff. He was unable to contact the plaintiff or his employer and obtained an arrest warrant for him. After the arrest, it was learned that the plaintiff was not the real offender. The detective was entitled to qualified immunity in a false arrest lawsuit, since his application for the warrant was based on probable cause, given the facts known at the time. Brown v. King, #2008-CA-00165, 2009 Ohio App. Lexis 4210 (Ohio App. 5th Dist.).
     An arrestee claimed that an affidavit used to obtain a warrant for his arrest contained misrepresentations concerning the nature of the findings of a special master in a child custody case. The appeals court found, however, from the plain language of a Florida court's decision in the child custody case that his wife had been made the primary residential parent because of his parental unfitness and drug use, and that he was required, under the terms of the decision to return his children to Florida. While it subsequently became known that the Florida court's order was invalidated due to the plaintiff's objections, this was not known from the records available at the time the warrant was obtained, and there was no evidence that the investigator who obtained the warrant had any reason to doubt the statements he made in his warrant application, so he was entitled to qualified immunity. Barton v. Curtis, #08-4905, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 26754 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
     A man was arrested in Texas pursuant to an arrest warrant issued in Wisconsin, and he presented no evidence of any reason that Texas law enforcement personnel should have doubted the validity of the warrant, defeating his false arrest claims. His denial of speedy trial claim was defeated by the fact that he was convicted of possessing child pornography, and his conviction has not been overturned on appeal or otherwise set aside. Krause v. Leonard, #09-40273, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 24387 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
     A police officer in Louisiana claimed that he was in charge of a center distributing supplies during Hurricane Katrina. He further argued that political animus a police chief had towards him was the reason that an illegal search of his residence was carried out and he was falsely arrested for purported theft of supplies. The officer sufficiently alleged that a detective, in applying for search and arrest warrants, both made false statements and omitted material information from the affidavits. Further discovery was ordered to determine if a police officer who entered the plaintiff's property and reported seeing allegedly stolen supplies was entitled to qualified immunity, because of conflicting versions as to his purposes for entering. Nothing more than "speculation," however, supported the claim that the police department's chief of investigations approved the filing of false affidavits, and there was also insufficient detail to support a claim that the police chief was personally involved in directing the filing of the affidavits. Claims against the city were properly dismissed in the absence of a showing that anyone acted pursuant to a municipal policy or custom. Floyd v. City of Kenner, #08-30637, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 23913 (5th Cir.).
     While an arrestee claimed that he was arrested without probable cause and without a valid warrant because the wrong form was used in violation of New Jersey law, a deputy court administrator stated that the proper forms were used and that none of the forms were altered. The plaintiff failed to offer any evidence to refute these statements. The defendants presented evidence that an officer in charge of the police station was authorized to administer oaths for criminal complaints under state law, and, while the plaintiff claimed that the warrants were fraudulent because the same officer administered the oath and issued the warrants, there was evidence that the warrants were actually issued by the deputy court administrator, who had the power to do so. Lemons v. Atlantic City Police Dept., #09-1576, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 20995 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
     Participants in a federal housing program sued, claiming that they were maliciously investigated and prosecuted in retaliation for exercising their right of free speech to criticize certain federal housing practices and filing a lawsuit against a number of government agencies. The investigation and prosecution, which was ultimately dropped, involved the plaintiffs' use of housing program funds. The plaintiffs failed to show that the agent involved in the investigation and prosecution was aware of their protected activity. Additionally, the investigation and their arrests occurred before they engaged in the speech in question, and was prompted by a complaint of non-payment of amounts allegedly due to a property owner. The appeals court also rejected false arrest and malicious prosecution claims as meritless, as the arrests were based on a valid warrant. Brown v. U.S. Postal Service, #08-10991, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 16525 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
     A man arrested under a warrant for terroristic threats and stalking with intent to place a person in fear of bodily injury was acquitted of those charges, and filed a federal civil rights lawsuit claiming that state troopers lied on their affidavit of probable cause. Rejecting his Fourth Amendment claims, a federal appeals court noted that the arrestee was convicted of harassment and stalking with intent to cause emotional distress. The jury's findings on these charges defeated the plaintiff's argument that there was no probable cause for his arrest. Shelley v. Wilson, #09-1193, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 17111 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
     A certified nursing assistant at a nursing home was arrested under a warrant on accusations of involvement in abuse there, but the charges against him were subsequently dropped. Rejecting a false arrest claim, the court found that there was no showing that misstatements or omissions in a detective's affidavit for the warrant were knowing or deliberate. While the detective may have acted with reckless disregard for the truth with respect to certain omissions in the affidavit, these omissions were not material to the finding of probable cause for the arrest, and therefore were not a basis to impose liability on the detective. Collins v. Christie, #08-3781, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 15462 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
     A police detective who obtained an arrest warrant for a dancer on charges of assaulting two patrons of a nightclub where he worked was not liable for false arrest. The detective interviewed all three parties during his investigation, and was entitled to qualified immunity as he could proceed, on the basis of the patrons' statements, to prepare the affidavit for the warrant for arrest for assault. Indeed, the dancer himself admitted that he first touched the patrons and did so without consent, which constituted assault. Frazier v. Williams, #06-615 , 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 46614 (D.D.C.).
     A detective's belief that there was probable cause for arresting a father for sexually assaulting his daughter was reasonable. The arrest warrant was obtained on the basis of a videotape of the daughter presenting a detailed account of the alleged assault and any inconsistencies in her story were minor. The detective knew of no motive for her to fabricate such a story, and he could reasonably rely on the videotaped statement without interviewing the daughter. Her attempted suicide did not necessarily undermine her reliability, and the detective had no knowledge of an ongoing child support dispute. There was no indication that anything known and relevant was withheld from the magistrate that issued the warrant. The appeals court upheld summary judgment for the defendants in a false arrest lawsuit. The court also rejected the argument that a fifteen-month delay in presenting the case to a grand jury violated due process or the right to a speedy trial. The father was not indicted, and the charges were dropped. Quinn v. Roach, #08-40633, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 9517 (5th Cir.).
     A magistrate that issued arrest warrants for the plaintiff reasonably relied on his former girlfriend's statements that he kept contacting her by phone and mail despite her written demand that he cease doing so. The magistrate also reasonably found probable cause for an arrest based on the existence of a written protective order, which it appeared the plaintiff had violated by his conduct. In the absence of anything that cast doubt on the victim's veracity, legal authorities can ordinarily rely on a victim's report of criminal conduct as the basis for probable cause for an arrest. The plaintiff failed to show that officers knowingly and intentionally, or even with reckless disregard, presented the victim's allegedly false accusations to the magistrate to obtain the warrants. Winter v. Northrup, #08-1264, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 11483 (Unpub. 2nd Cir.).
      When an officer's investigation showed that a suspect had knowledge of violent incidents involving a 15-year-old boy residing at a intermediate care facility who was having trouble adjusting there, she had probable cause to seek an arrest warrant for cruelty to the infirm. The youth suffered from a seizure disorder, violent incidents, severe retardation, and schizophrenia, but the arrestee allegedly refused to comply with recommendations of the resident's care team that he be moved elsewhere and be subject to one-on-one supervision. This allegedly resulted in harm to the resident from more violent incidents. These facts, recited in the warrant affidavit, were sufficient to provide probable cause for the arrest. Barfield v. Louisiana, #08-30334, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 7258 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
    Officers were not entitled to qualified immunity for allegedly making an arrest with an arrest warrant lacking indications of probable cause. The affidavits the officers submitted to obtain the warrant made "conclusory" statements that the arrestee committed the charged crimes, but the officers failed to reveal that part of the information had come from a confidential informant, and failed to provide any facts as to the informant's reliability or basis of knowledge. The officers were not pressed for time or faced with making a split-second decision, the court found, and indeed did not draft the affidavits until four months after the events at issue. Under these circumstances, the officers could not be said to have made an objectively reasonable mistake. Ruiz v. Lebanon County, Pa., #07-4244, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 7383 (Unpub.3rd Cir.).
     Based on statements by a school principal and a teacher about an allegedly harassing and threatening phone message the plaintiff made to the teacher, along with the reading of a transcript of the message, there was probable cause for an arrest warrant, and there still would have been even if allegedly omitted information had been included in the affidavit for the warrant. Leone v. Fisher, No. 07-4851, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 3987 (Unpub. 2nd Cir.).
     Even though a request for an arrest warrant to charge the plaintiff with murder was based on a witness's second statement, which indicated that her initial statement was untruthful, the arrestee was barred from relitigating the question of whether there had been probable cause for his arrest by the fact that such probable cause had been found at a subsequent preliminary hearing which included evidence of the first statement made by the witness, as well as her drug use, and the fact that she had altered her account of events. Since all this was presented at the preliminary hearing, there was no argument that the defendant officers had deliberately provided the criminal court with inaccurate information. Flowers v. City of Detroit, No. 08-1035, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 1038 (Unpub. 6th Cir.).
     A state trooper was entitled to qualified immunity for obtaining an arrest warrant for a woman for possession of marijuana plants on a lot adjacent to her home. The trooper acted in compliance with legal advice he obtained from a prosecutor before submitting an affidavit seeking the warrant. Further, while she claimed she did not own the lot, a receipt found during a search of her home connected her to items found on the lot, giving him probable cause to believe that she also possessed the plants found there. Ginter v. Skahill, No. 06-4814, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 24635 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
     In asserting that he was arrested pursuant to a warrant based on mistaken identity, and that the defendants failed to perform easily performed identity checks, which would have made it clear that he was not the suspect sought, the plaintiff presented a viable federal civil rights claim. He argued that he repeated told officers that he was not the person sought in the warrant, but that they still refused to use available identification technology, and that they "routinely" held the wrong people because of similar names. If true, this could constitute a violation of due process. Alvarado v. Bratton, No. 07-55907, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 23055 (Unpub. 9th Cir.).
     While an Arkansas deputy sheriff may have arrested the plaintiff in Oklahoma on an Arkansas warrant, he had an objectively reasonable belief at the time that he was still in Arkansas, and therefore, in doing so, did not violate the arrestee's constitutional rights. Engleman v. Murray, No. 07-2060, 546 F.3d 944 (8th Cir. 2008).
     Rejecting an arrestee's argument that a judge would not have issued an arrest warrant if certain facts had been included in the affidavits submitted, a federal appeals court ruled that there would still have been probable cause even with these facts included. Information concerning the arrestee's location had no impact on the issue of whether or not he had been involved in a shooting, nor did the possible taint of an identification by the shooting victim suffice to eliminate probable cause. Cournoyer v. Coleman, No. 06-4978, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 22560 (2nd. Cir.).
     Probable cause existed for the issuance of an arrest warrant for a woman for the theft of a purse from a fellow visitor at an amusement park. A videotape showed the purse being taken by a juvenile who subsequently left with the plaintiff. Manley v. Paramount's Kings Island, No. 07-4539, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 22655 (Unpub. 6th Cir.).
     Georgia arrest warrants executed in Florida outside the jurisdiction of the issuing court did not serve to insulate a deputy sheriff from liability for false arrest of the plaintiff businesswoman and her jailing for six days for writing bad checks to a food supplier, until her family came up with money to cover the checks.  The checks presented were post-dated checks, and a prudent officer would not have found probable cause for an arrest based on the known facts, including the supplier's past practice of accepting post-dated checks from the arrestee. The deputy could also be sued for conspiring with the supplier to detain the arrestee to attempt to compel her to pay obligations that were not yet due. Brown v. Camden County, Georgia, Civil Action No. CV207-69, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 81713 (S.D. Ga.).
     When there were outstanding issues of both law and fact concerning whether an arrest warrant was facially valid, a federal court granted a plaintiff additional time to submit his response to a motion for summary judgment and vacated its prior grant of summary judgment for the defendants, which had been based on the plaintiff's failure to timely file his response. He claimed that the affidavit and an attachment to it did not suffice to justify the issuance of the warrant. Burris v. Quorum Court of Lincoln County, Arkansas, No. 5:07-CV-087, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 75346 (E.D. Ark.),
     There was probable cause for the arrest, pursuant to a warrant, of a police officer on charges of bribery based on an affidavit stating that he allowed a stopped motorist exhibiting signs of intoxication at a checkpoint to leave after mentioning to the motorist police department equipment needs that he could satisfy, and subsequently had possession and control of money implicated in a bribery scheme. Rejecting the arrestee's claim that the special agent who obtained the warrant omitted material facts from the warrant affidavit, the court found that there was still probable cause even if the allegedly omitted facts were added that the arrestee did not receive the money directly from the motorist, that he was not in charge of the checkpoint at which the stop occurred, and that his processing of the money was conducted pursuant to the borough's rules. Soberick v. Borough of Lansford, No.3:04cv1738, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 71882 (M.D. Pa.).
     While an arrest warrant used to arrest an accused sex offender was issued five days before the date the clerk's signature indicated a police sergeant swore to the affidavit, this did not mean that the arrest was made under a warrant not subscribed to under oath, since the arrest occurred after the affirmation. Additionally, the arresting police sergeant reasonably relied on information from the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI) that the charges against the arrestee were outstanding, that he was required to register as a sex offender, and that he was present in the county. The sergeant's verification that the arrestee had not provided his address to the sheriff was sufficient to provide probable cause, despite the fact that it later was found that the arrestee was not actually required to register. Smith v. Greenlee, No. 08-10405, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 17564 (Unpub. 11th Cir.).
     A man was allegedly falsely arrested and convicted for public indecency in exposing himself at a library. The application for the arrest warrant allegedly failed to include the victim's physical description of the offender or that given by witnesses, and did not state that fingerprint analysis was incomplete and that the plaintiff had not been identified by the witnesses or victim. His conviction was overturned after fingerprints from books that the perpetrator had handled turned out to belong to another man. But the arrestee failed to show that the town should be held liable, as there was no defect in the police department's policies that caused his arrest. The mere fact that the plaintiff was falsely arrested was insufficient to show that the city failed to adequately train or supervise officers. Seri v. Town of Newton, Civil Action No. 3:03cv1301, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 66039 (D. Conn.).
     Even though information allegedly omitted from an affidavit supporting the issuance of an arrest warrant might have given the arresting officer a basis for questioning the truth of the complainant's story, the officer also conducted an investigation and questioned a number of persons, and also obtained partial confirmation of the complainant's version of events when the arrestee himself stated that he had "jokingly" made comments to the complainant which were similar to what she reported. Accordingly, a federal appeals court upheld summary judgment for the officer on the plaintiff's false arrest claim. Feehan v. Lengyel, No. 06-5250, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 10852 (Unpub. 2nd Cir.).
     Police chief did not violate an assistant chief's constitutional rights to be violated by having an arrest warrant issued for him after he was told that the assistant chief had threatened to shoot him. Additionally, a federal appeals court rules, there was no evidence that the city's policies or customs caused the alleged violations of the arrestee's rights. The fact that charges were ultimately not pursued against the arrestee did not alter the result. De Angelis v. City of El Paso, No. 06-51396, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 3477 (5th Cir.).
     Police official who was not shown to have played any role at all in drafting, obtaining, or executing an arrest warrant for kidnapping could not be held vicariously liable for alleged violations of the arrestees' rights merely on the basis of having assigned a police detective to the case. There was also no evidence that the alleged violations of the arrestees' rights occurred because of any direction that the defendant had provided, or that he consented to or even had knowledge of those actions. Wilkinson v. City of Vicksburg, Civil Action No. 5:05-CV-94, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 9357 (S.D. Miss.).
     An arrestee who claimed in his lawsuit that he had been falsely arrestee under a warrant that had been dismissed could not pursue his claim when he failed to give the date of the purported arrest, or the date he had been arraigned, since, without that information, it could not be determined whether his lawsuit was timely. Further, the plaintiff failed to name particular defendants responsible for his alleged arrest, and improperly sought to assert claims for federal civil rights liability against the county on the basis of vicarious liability. Porto v. Camden County Freedholders, No. 07-5359, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 90855 (D.N.J.).
     Court rejects man's claim that a police detective submitted false information to a court in an application seeking an arrest warrant for making derogatory statements involving banks and criminal impersonation in phone calls to a state agency. The facts showed that the man had access to the phone used in making the four calls in question, and that the arrest warrant was based on multiple identifications of the voice as belonging to the plaintiff, and phone records linking the plaintiff's business to the calls made. Tuccio v. Papstein, No. 3:05-CV-1407, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 72567 (D. Conn.).
     Police officers were not liable for arresting a suspect on the basis of an outstanding bench warrant they were informed about by a third officer when the invalidity of the warrant was not discovered until the officers and arrestee were at the police station. The warrant was not facially invalid and there was no evidence that the officers reasonably should have known that it was invalid at the time of the arrest. Hanks v. County of Delaware, No. 05-CV-6400, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 73845 (E.D. Pa.).
     Four arrest warrants obtained against a suspect after he was apprehended were all based on probable cause. Additionally, no arrest warrants were actually required because officers had personally observed the suspect breaking the law. Two prosecutors and two judges sued by the arrestee had absolute immunity against the plaintiff's federal civil rights claims. Briggs v. Moore, No. 07-1918, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 24309 (3rd Cir.).
     Arrest warrant under which arrestee was charged with assault on a police officer was adequately supported by probable cause. The application for the warrant was accompanied by an affidavit by the officer stating that the suspect had challenged him to a fight, and an affidavit by a prosecutor based on other available evidence, including an unsworn statement by another officer, which confirmed that the suspect had made the alleged challenge. Cummisky v. Mines, No. 06-5028, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 22983 (10th Cir.).
     Even if, as the arrestee claimed, deputies falsified certain information in applying for an arrest warrant, there was still sufficient information left supporting a finding of probable cause, so that the deputies were entitled to qualified immunity in a subsequent false arrest lawsuit. Further proceedings were ordered, however, on whether the arresteee, who was deaf, was subjected to violation of his rights under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132 following his arrest. Robertson v. Las Animas County Sheriff's Dept., No. 06-1027, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 21706 (10th Cir.).
     Officers had probable cause to believe that a landowner had threatened to commit a crime of violence when he had previously told them that he would do "whatever" he had to do to "protect" his purported property rights in connection with a dispute between him and a developer, and he had also previously displayed firearms to the developer's employees. They had probable cause to obtain an arrest warrant and search warrant, particularly after the landowner stated that they were not taking actions needed to avoid "a bloodbath" occurring as a result of the dispute. A search warrant obtained for the home of the landowner's mother's home, however, was not supported by probable cause, as he had not recently lived there, and there was no allegation that any weapons were stored there, so further proceedings were required on claims arising out of that particular search warrant. Walczyk v. Rio, No. 04-5711, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 18255 (2nd Cir.).
     Federal appeals court lacked jurisdiction over appeal by the Director of the United States Virgin Islands Department of Justice, Special Investigations Division, of the denial of his qualified immunity defense in a federal civil rights lawsuit by an arrestee claiming that the Director had made false statements in an affidavit to obtain an arrest warrant to arrest him for the crime of making misrepresentations to a court while seeking sole custody of his children. Because the trial court's denial of the qualified immunity defense was based on disputed facts as to whether the Director acted reasonably or "knowingly or recklessly" presented false information in the affidavit, those factual disputes would have to be resolved in the trial court, and the qualified immunity defense, therefore, could not be granted at this time. Barton v. Curtis, No. 06-3336, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 18065 (3rd Cir.).
     A "barebones" affidavit that did not provide a factual basis for probable cause, which was used to obtain an arrest warrant for a woman on charges of accessory after the fact to an alleged botched robbery and murder by her husband was insufficient to support qualified immunity for the defendants in her false arrest lawsuit. Spencer v. Staton, No. 06-30020, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis (5th Cir.).
     An arrestee placed into custody on the basis of an arrest warrant for another person, on which his name appeared as an alias, had been detained under a facially valid warrant. Despite the arrestee's assertion that he had repeatedly told police that he was not the person sought in the warrant, and that his name may have appeared there as a result of identity theft, his four nights in custody did not violate his constitutional rights under the circumstances. Alvarado v. Bratton, No. CV 06-7812, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 37280 (C.D. Cal.).
     An arrestee's false arrest claim did not accrue under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 until the prosecution terminated in his favor, so that his lawsuit, filed one year after that was not barred by a statute of limitations. Mapes v. Bishop, No. 06-30559, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 14123 (5th Cir.).
     Probable cause existed for the issuance of an arrest warrant for the plaintiff, based on physical descriptions given by robbery victims, the fact that he owned a car of the same make and color as that of the getaway vehicle, and that two or three witnesses to the robbery identified him from an initial photographic line-up. Additionally, a number of his own family members identified him as the person shown in a security camera photograph. Brock v. City of Zephyrhills, No. 06-16407, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 11873 (11th Cir.).
     Seizure of arrestee by constable acting to execute a facially valid arrest warrant found to be supported by probable cause, barring a claim for false arrest. Pierre v. Warrick, No.: 4:05-CV-1915, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 11838 (M.D. Pa.).
     U.S. Supreme Court rules that the statute of limitations on a federal civil rights claim for false arrest which results in a criminal prosecution starts to run on the date the arrestee is detained. Wallace v. Kato, No. 05-1240, 127 S. Ct. 1091 (2007).[N/R]
     Police detective was not shown to have deliberately or recklessly made misrepresentations of fact to a judge in obtaining a warrant for the arrest of a father for child abduction for taking his two children to another state during a visitation without his estranged wife's permission. Mannoia v. Farrow, No. 06-1430, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 2607 (7th Cir.). [N/R]
     Arrest warrant was not supported by probable cause when an officer's affidavit allegedly included deliberate misrepresentations. The warrant issued listed the suspect as a white male, even though the arrestee was an African-American. Even if the false statements were removed, the affidavit would not support probable cause for an arrest. The officer who obtained the warrant was not entitled to qualified immunity. Miller v. Prince George's County, Maryland, No. 05-2250, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 1347 (4th Cir.).[N/R]
     County was not liable for alleged false arrest and false imprisonment of a man under an arrest warrant actually issued for his twin brother. The warrant listed his name as an alias for the brother, and the arrestee was only held in jail for 4.5 hours before his release on bail. Rudkin v. Sedgwick County, Kansas, Case No. 05-1156, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 2395 (D. Kan.). [N/R]
     Police officer arrested under a warrant on charges of rape, attempted murder, and second degree kidnapping failed to show that the city had any official custom or policy which led to his allegedly false arrest, so there could be no municipal liability. Further, the discrepancies in the warrant application that the plaintiff complained of were not essential to the finding of probable cause and issuance of the warrant, so the sergeant who obtained the warrant was also entitled to summary judgment. Daniel v. Compass, No. 05-31157, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 30605 (5th Cir.). [N/R]
     No reasonable jury could find that an officer acted unreasonably in arresting a man under an outstanding but old arrest warrant for someone of the same race, name, and sex, who, when questioned about the warrant replied that he thought the matter had been "taken care of already." It subsequently turned out that the warrant was for another man with a different birth date, and that the arrestee had mistakenly believed that the warrant the officer was referring to a traffic violation he had actually committed. Tibbs v. City of Chicago, No. 05-1634, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 29135 (7th Cir.). [N/R]
    County sheriff was not liable under Ohio law for detention of motorist under arrest warrant negligently not removed from computer system after it had been withdrawn. Amrhein v. Lucas County Sheriff, No. L-06-1170, 2006 Ohio App. Lexis 5032 (6th Dist. Lucas County). [N/R]
     Several arrests of a police officer's wife, under valid arrest warrants, in connection with domestic disputes, did not violate her rights when the plaintiff failed to show that there were any false statements in the affidavits seeking the warrants. The failure of investigating officers to immediately arrest her husband when she stated that he had attacked her did not violate her due process rights. Investigating officer looked into both husband's and wife's versions of the incident, and two days later obtained arrest warrants for both of them. Zappone v. Town of Watertown, No. CIV. 3:99CV00944, 427 F. Supp. 2d 83 (D. Conn. 2006). [N/R]
     Plaintiff arrestee adequately alleged that her arrest for violation of probation concerning prostitution was made with a warrant that was not valid on its face, and which had been altered after it was issued by the handwritten insertion of her proper married last name, so that sheriff's deputies sued for alleged arrest of plaintiff in a case of mistaken identity were not entitled to qualified immunity. Plaintiff claimed that her identity had been stolen ten years before and that the jurisdiction seeking the suspect had both a photograph of the suspect and her fingerprints, but failed to send those items to the county officers who arrested her. McCutchen v. Tipton County, No. 05-2142, 430 F. Supp. 2d 741 (W.D. Tenn. 2006). [N/R]
     Detective could not be held liable for alleged constitutional violations stemming from a purportedly unduly suggestive identification or alleged defects in the procurement of the arrest warrant when the arrestee pled guilty to the charged robbery offense. Antonio v. Moore, No. 05-6272, 174 Fed. Appx. 131 (4th Cir. 2006). [N/R]
     Neither police nor sheriff's office were liable for mistaken arrest and detention of man under a warrant for a man with a similar name and identical physical characteristics and birthday. Sheriff's policy of ignoring protests about misidentification after an arrestee appears before a judge and is remanded to the sheriff's custody could not be a basis of federal civil rights liability. $750,000 jury damage award set aside. Hernandez v. City of Chicago, No. 04-2246, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 18679 (7th Cir.). [2006 LR Sep]
     In a lawsuit brought against the U.S. government and an agent of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for false arrest and malicious prosecution of a man for allegedly falsely obtaining government funds for disaster relief assistance after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2680(g) provides that a lawsuit against the U.S. government is the exclusive remedy, barring New York state law claims against the agent. Applying New York law to the claims against the U.S. government, the plaintiff could not prevail on his false arrest claim when his arrest was carried out under a valid arrest warrant, and could not recover on his malicious prosecution claim when he failed to show that the prosecution against him was started with "actual malice." Lewis v. U.S., No. 03 Civ. 10220, 388 F. Supp. 2d 190 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). [N/R]
     FBI agent could rely on facts provided by local law enforcement authorities in procuring a federal flight warrant for the arrest of a father who did not return his daughter to her mother at the conclusion of an authorized visitation period, and was alleged to have a demonstrated willingness to cross state lines with the child, taking her from Florida to Massachusetts, and was not required to conduct his own investigation. The agent knew that a state law arrest warrant had been issued, and he was not required to investigate the validity of that warrant. Meuse v. Freeh, No. CIV. A. 04-10255, 421 F. Supp. 2d 365 (D. Mass. 2006). [N/R]
     A city, its arresting officer, and a police dispatcher were all entitled to state agent immunity under Alabama state law for actions which resulted in a man's arrest under an outstanding warrant for another man with a similar name. The officer and dispatcher, in mistakenly determining that the arrestee was the individual sought under the warrant, were engaged in the exercise of judgment in the enforcement of criminal laws, and therefore were immune from liability under Ala. Code Sec. 6-5-338. Swan v. City of Hueytown, No. 1031058, 920 So. 2d 1075 (Ala. 2005). [N/R]
     Arrest, pursuant to warrant, of man who allegedly threatened purported trespassers on his club's land by pointing a gun at them did not violate his rights. Officer properly passed along the man's denial of this to the prosecutor along with the statements of the complaining witnesses, and his mere denial was insufficient to eliminate probable cause for the arrest. Grubbs v. Bailes, No. 05-7076 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 10437 (10th Cir.). [2006 LR Jun]
     Even without allegedly false information provided by police inspector in his affidavit for the arrest warrant, there was probable cause to issue the warrant for the arrest of the suspect based on the minor victim's statements that he had repeatedly touched her in the area of her vagina, and a therapist's report indicating that the suspect had touched the victim's chest area and bottom. Police inspector was therefore entitled to qualified immunity from arrestee's Fourth Amendment claim. Guerrero v. City and County of San Francisco, No. 03-17313, 156 Fed. Appx. 36 (9th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     Police detective was entitled to qualified immunity for alleged false arrest of suspect under arrest warrant. The application for the arrest warrant was not so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to make it unreasonable to rely on in making the arrest. The arrestee fit the description of the suspect and the detective learned before the arrest that the arrestee was working at the store at the time of the alleged theft, as well as that another participant in the theft had implicated the arrestee. Byers v. City of Eunice, No. 04-31053, 157 Fed. Appx. 680 (5th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     Officer did not violate arrestee's civil rights in obtaining federal arrest warrant based on man's violation of restraining order barring him from obtaining a weapon. At the time he did so, the restraining order appeared to be valid, and the officer could not know that it would ultimately be ruled to have been issued without proper notice. Spruill v. Watson, No. 04-51284, 157 Fed. Appx. 741 (5th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     County employees were entitled to absolute immunity for seizing and incarcerating a man under a valid bench warrant issued in a child support arrearage case. Lepre v. Tolerico, No. 04-4179, 156 Fed. Appx. 523 (3rd Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     Man arrested under a warrant issued based on his failure to pay alimony had an arguable civil rights claim. He contended that the officers had no authority under the warrant to immediately incarcerate him, but instead should have merely brought him before the judge. Rodriguez v. Garcia, #CIV. 03-2238, 403 F. Supp. 2d 174 (D. Puerto Rico. 2005). [N/R]
     Warrant for suspect's arrest for burglary was supported by arguable probable cause, entitling arresting officer to qualified immunity from liability. Evidence supporting probable cause for warrant including the identification of the suspect in a photographic line-up as the person a security guard saw on the balcony of a burglarized building and fleeing the scene in a van parked in a garage that had access to the burglarized apartments. Brown v. Abercrombie, No. 05-11931, 151 Fed. Appx. 892 (11th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     Investigator was entitled to qualified immunity on claims that he obtained arrest warrants for elementary school teacher which were not based on probable cause. Warrant was supported by probable cause based on statements by student that the teacher attacked and choked her, together with documented evidence of injuries. McKinney v. Richland County Sheriff's Dep't, No. 05-6423, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 27091 (4th Cir. December 12, 2005). [2006 LR Feb]
     Officer had probable cause to arrest suspect for arson despite an error in the affidavit for the arrest warrant concerning the amount of insurance the suspect had on the property. The arrest warrant was facially valid and the investigation included interviews with almost forty witnesses indicating that the fire was caused by arson. Additionally, the substantial amount of insurance on the property, even if not stated exactly in the affidavit, provided the owner with a motive for the fire. Bontatibus v. Ayr, No. Civ.A.3-03CV948, 386 F. Supp. 2d 28 (D. Conn. 2005). [N/R]
     State trooper acted unreasonably in executing an arrest warrant on a suspect at his home in the nighttime when the warrant was for a misdemeanor charge of failing to appear in court on a prior misdemeanor. The bail was set at a low $500 amount, the warrant could have been executed in the daytime, there were no exigent circumstances justifying the nighttime arrest, and no neutral magistrate or judge determined that it was reasonable to make a nighttime arrest. The trooper, however, was entitled to qualified immunity from liability, due to the absence of binding prior precedent on the subject. Cipes v. Graham, No. 3:04CV1412, 386 F. Supp. 2d 34 (D. Conn. 2005). [N/R]
     Arrest warrant under which suspect was arrested was sufficiently specific in its description to provide officers with probable cause for an arrest, despite the fact that it was actually for another person who had stolen the arrestee's identity. Because the warrant identified the arrestee's exact name, date of birth, hair color, eye color, driver's license number, and height, and the weight listed was only five pounds different from the arrestee's actual weight, a reasonable officer could have believed that the suspect was the person named in the arrest warrant. Fulgencio v. City of Los Angeles, No. 03-56501, 131 Fed. Appx. 96 (9th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     Police officers were entitled to summary judgment on false arrest claims when the affidavit supporting the arrest warrant did not have any material misstatements or omissions of fact. Legal determination as to whether the facts alleged were sufficient to support an arrest for forgery, tampering with public records and securing the signing of documents by deception were properly left to the judge examining the affidavit, who issued the warrant. Edwards v. Kelly, No. 04-3105, 136 Fed. Appx. 468 (3rd Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     Detective who prepared arrest warrant which was issued on the basis of his "conclusory" claim that the arrestee had transported her fugitive son, sought on a rape charge, to another location to escape arrest could not rely on the warrant to justify an arrest. His statement was insufficient to provide probable cause to arrest the mother for hindering the apprehension of her son. Butts v. City of Bowling Green, No. 1:04CV-129, 374 F. Supp. 2nd 532 (W.D. Ky. 2005). [N/R]
     Deputy sheriffs were entitled to qualified immunity for their arrest of a man under a bench warrant issued by a judge in connection with child support proceedings, despite the erroneous nature of the warrant, since it was facially valid and they had no reason to believe otherwise. Cogswell v. County of Suffolk Deputy Sheriff's Dept., No. 02CV 4281, 375 F. Supp. 2d 182 (E.D.N.Y. 2005). [N/R]
     Officers had qualified immunity from liability for arresting a man for alleged sexual assault, false imprisonment, and harassment of a co-worker based on the alleged victim's "credible" account which was supported in part by hotel records, and the fact that a trial judge signed an arrest warrant based on these submitted facts. Mitchell v. Obenski, No. 04-3730, 154 Fed. Appx. 548 (3rd Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     U.S. marshal acted reasonably in mistakenly arresting a woman in her apartment while executing a valid arrest warrant for another person. The defendant marshal had grounds to believe that the suspect sought lived in the arrestee's building and acted reasonably in relying on the building manager's identification of the tenant when shown pictures of the suspect sought. Favors v. U.S., No. 04-1069, 137 Fed. Appx. 493 (3rd Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     State prosecutor and trial judge were both entitled to absolute immunity from liability from arrestee's claim that they conspired together to have him arrested on false charges by having an arrest warrant issued concerning traffic offenses which they allegedly knew had previously been dismissed. Lyghtle v. Breitenbach, No. 04-3296, 139 Fed. Appx. 17 (10th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     Police officer had probable cause to arrest woman for obstruction when she blocked his entry into her home to arrest her son inside, for whom he and accompanying officers had two arrest warrants. Arrestee's statement that the officers entered her home without "warning, notice, or consent" did not contradict the officers' version of the events, so that they had both lawful authority to enter and to arrest her when she attempted to interfere. Ward v. Moore, No. 04-2138 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 14424 (8th Cir.). [2005 LR Sep]
     Arrestees in two separate cases adequately stated a claim for their false arrest under warrants obtained by officers. Plaintiffs in both cases presented allegations that officers had made false statements that drug substances had been seized from the suspects, and had tested positive for the presence of narcotics. Jenkins v. De La Paz, No. 04-10460, 124 Fed. Appx. 265 (5th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     Arrest of former police officer under warrant charging him with theft of funds while in office was supported by probable cause, entitling defendants to summary judgment on false arrest and malicious prosecution claims. Voyticky v. Village of Timberlake, No. 04-3252, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 11948 (6th Cir.). [2005 LR Aug]
     A parole officer was entitled to qualified immunity for deciding to arrest a parolee for a "technical" parole violation (working outside the state and possessing a cell phone) under a warrant, even though he knew that an intermediate state appeals court had granted the parolee a new trial, when he was unaware that the state's appeal to the state Supreme Court had been denied, or that the charges against the parolee had subsequently been dropped. Donaldson v. Mugavero, No. 04-1648, 126 Fed. Appx. 63 (3rd Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     Deputy sheriff was not entitled to qualified immunity on claims that she omitted material exculpatory facts from an affidavit used to obtain an arrest warrant, including an alleged failure to note that an outstanding bench warrant was for a firearms citation rather than a stalking incident, and that the deputy had a letter from the prosecutor stating that no charges were currently pending. Melessa v. Randall, No. 03-4237, 121 Fed. Appx. 803 (10th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     Officers' arrest of suspect for alleged commission of three robberies in one evening, pursuant to an arrest warrant, was sufficiently supported by probable cause when there was both forensic evidence and witness statements implicating the arrestee in those crimes, and mere "conclusory" statements that the officers had coerced the witnesses into making their statements were insufficient to alter the result. Vines v. Callahan, No. CIV.A. 3-99-CV-1746, 352 F. Supp. 2d 211 (D. Conn. 2005). [N/R]
     Police detective did not violate an arrestee's rights under the Fourth Amendment by seeking a warrant for his arrest based on a woman's statement that she had hurt her leg when he battered her two weeks earlier. The detective could reasonably rely on the alleged victim's statement and was not required to further investigate before seeking an arrest warrant. Further, there was no showing that the detective knowingly made false statements or omitted exculpatory evidence in the affidavit in support of the warrant. George v. City of Wichita, No. 02-1344, 348 F. Supp. 2d 1232 (D. Kan. 2004). [N/R]
     Police officers had probable cause to obtain arrest warrants for two individuals who, after a "contentious" court hearing allegedly left the room muttering the words "judge," "shot," or "judge should be shot." Statements from witnesses who claimed to have heard these remarks were sufficient to furnish probable cause for arrests on charges that they violated a New Jersey statute forbidding threatening a public servant with the purpose of influencing a decision in a judicial proceeding. El v. Gloucester Township, No. 04-1328, 116 Fed. Appx. 386 (3rd Cir. 2004). [N/R]
     Police officer's alleged violation of a state statute prohibiting him from making an arrest outside of the town which was his primary jurisdiction, even if true did not, by itself, make the arrest, pursuant to a valid arrest warrant, unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Armstead v. Township of Upper Dublin, No. Civ.A. 03-CV-3608, 347 F. Supp.2d 188 (E.D. Pa. 2004). [N/R]
     Officers who were informed by the sheriff's department that there was a facially valid warrant for a suspect's arrest were entitled to rely on it even if the arrestee and his family told them that it was not valid. Cunningham v. Reid, No. 03-1055, 337 F. Supp. 2d 1064 (W.D. Tenn. 2004). [N/R]
     Police officer who obtained arrest warrant had sufficient evidence to have probable cause that suspect had been deceiving elderly man for years, having him establish a joint banking account with her from which she later took a substantial sum of money. Officer's affidavit also established probable cause to believe that the arrestee had taken other property. Kane v. Lewis and Clark County, Montana, No. 03-35172, 111 Fed. Appx. 870 (9th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
     Officers had probable cause to arrest man under facially valid arrest warrant that had his name, photo, and social security number, despite the fact that it had an incorrect address for him, and the fact that he subsequently turned out not to be the person who actually committed the drug trafficking offense. Officers could reasonably have believed that the arrestee merely changed his address and were entitled to qualified immunity on his claim for false arrest. Johnson v. Watson, No. 03-4756, 113 Fed. Appx. 482 (3rd Cir. 2004). [N/R]
     Police officer who arrested, under warrant, the owner of legally registered firearms and ammunition on suspicion of uttering "threats" was not entitled to qualified immunity. The arrestee's "occasional bellicose" statements in the presence of police were insufficient to support a reasonable belief that there was probable cause to arrest him for any crime. The arrest, however, did not violate the Second Amendment. Court finds that there is no federal civil rights claim based on "a right to own firearms unrelated to the maintenance of a militia." Walczyk v. Rio, No. 3:02CV1536, 339 F. Supp. 2d 385 (D. Conn. 2004). [N/R]
     Officers who sought an arrest warrant based on a corrections officer's alleged sexual misconduct with a female inmate had arguable probable cause for his arrest despite some inconsistencies in complaining prisoner's story. Probable cause existed for the arrest, based on all the officers knew, even if some of it was not fully expressed in the application for the warrant. Escalera v. Lunn, No. 03-7121, 361 F.3d 737 (2d Cir. 2004). [2004 LR Dec]
     Woman arrested on a warrant for unlawfully depriving another of the custody of a child or visitation rights failed to show that the deputy sheriff who obtained the warrant fabricated any of the information in the warrant application. The deputy was therefore properly granted summary judgment in a false arrest lawsuit. Gray v. County of Los Angeles, #03-55012, 103 Fed. Appx. 112 (9th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
     Probable cause existed for the arrest, pursuant to a warrant, of a civilian police department crime lab employee when work records and observations indicated she was at work at a second job as an aerobics instructor while claiming to work overtime at the crime lab. Her subsequent acquittal of the charges, based on her defense that she made up the overtime hours at other times, did not alter the result, since the investigating officer had ample facts, based on reasonably reliable sources of information to provide him with probable cause at the time of the arrest. Dintino v. Echols, #03-1517, 91 Fed. Appx. 783 (3rd Cir. 2004). [N/R]
    Man arrested under a valid warrant in a case of mistaken identity did not show that officers violated his constitutional rights in making the arrest by failing to attempt to compare the photo of the suspect sought with his appearance. Since the officers had the correct address, and the arrestee himself "acquiesced" in the arrest, this did not show anything other than, at most, negligence on the part of the officers, which was insufficient for a federal civil rights claim. Jordan v. Fournier, 324 F. Supp. 2d 242 (D. Me. 2004). [N/R]
     Judge's finding that arrestee was guilty on charges of delaying a police officer in the performance of his duties, which he had been arrested for under a warrant, showed that there was probable cause for the arrest, even though the arrestee was not formally sentenced or "convicted" of the charges, since the judge entered a "prayer for judgment continued" under North Carolina law. Such a ruling, while it had the effect of not sentencing the arrestee for the offense, did not establish his innocence of it. Elkins v. Broome, 328 F. Supp. 2d 596 (M.D.N.C. 2004). [N/R]
     Deputy U.S. marshal acted in an objectively reasonable manner in making a capias arrest under a valid civil arrest warrant for the purposes of enforcing a lawful subpoena obtained by the U.S. government on behalf of the Department of Transportation in a pending enforcement case in which the arrestee had failed to respond to the subpoena. Additionally, the arrestee was barred under the doctrine of collateral estoppel from pursuing his civil rights claims concerning his arrest and custody by the deputy U.S. marshal under the warrant, since the court in the enforcement action had already ruled on those issues in a "show cause" hearing held following the arrest. Eck v. Gallucci, 321 F. Supp. 2d 368 (D. Conn. 2004). [N/R]
     Police officers could justifiably rely upon a "credible complaint" by an alleged student victim of sexual molestation by a teacher as probable cause for an arrest. The fact that the complainant was a "special education" student did not alter the result when the detective who prepared the affidavit for the arrest warrant found him credible. Forest v. Pawtucket Police Dept., No. 03-2652, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 15527 (1st Cir.). [2004 LR Sep]
     Two officers who arrested the plaintiff acting in good faith pursuant to what appeared to be a facially valid arrest warrant could not be held liable for false arrest on the basis of alleged omissions of material information from the affidavit for the warrant, when they did not participate in preparing it. Cea v. Ulster County, 309 F. Supp. 2d 321 (N.D.N.Y. 2004). [N/R]
     Police officer properly arrested a man under an outstanding facially valid bench warrant bearing his name, and had no reason to know that the man's brother had falsely given his name when previously arrested for shoplifting. Carter v. Baltimore County, Maryland, 95 Fed. Appx. 471 (4th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
     Postal inspector was authorized under Maine law to swear out a complaint and obtain a warrant for the arrest of a local postmaster for allegedly indecently exposing himself to a 15-year-old girl. Even though he allegedly had no authority to make the arrest for a state law misdemeanor, the arrest was proper when he was accompanied by a deputy sheriff in executing the warrant. Santoni v. Potter, No. 03-1914, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 10456 (1st Cir.). [2004 LR Jul]
     Police officer who arrested suspect on the basis of a warrant for breach of the peace issued by a judge was entitled to qualified immunity. Issuance of warrant supported a presumption that the arrest was supported by probable cause, and there was no showing that the officer in any way misled the judge in order to obtain the warrant. Abramowitz v. Romano, 303 F. Supp. 2d 79 (D. Conn. 2004). [N/R]
     Police officer could reasonably believe that there was probable cause to arrest students for complicity to commit rape based on issuance of arrest warrant which relied on the account of eyewitnesses and was judicially approved, in the absence of any evidence that either the officer or an attorney whose advice he relied upon knowingly made any material misstatements of fact in the application for the warrant. The fact that ultimately no charges were pursued against the students did not alter the result, as the issue was the existence of probable cause at the time of the arrest. Crockett v. Cumberland College, No. 01-5306, 316 F.3d 571 (6th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
     Trial court should not have dismissed civil rights claim by man arrested for the second time on the same warrant, since the facts alleged would have supported a conclusion that the officers acted unreasonably by failing to check on the warrant when confronted with the possibility that it might no longer be valid. Pena-Borrero v. Estremeda, No. 03-1084, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 6949 (1st Cir. 2004). [2004 LR May]
     FBI agent who allegedly knowingly caused the arrest of the wrong man through the use of a facially valid warrant intended for the arrest of his brother was not entitled to qualified immunity. Lee v. Gregory, No. 02-57132, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 6648 (9th Cir. 2004). [2004 LR May]
     Arrestee failed to show that there was a lack of probable cause for affidavits which served as the basis for the issuance of an arrest warrant on charges of violating a protective order, as required to support a claim against the official who swore out the affidavits. Freeman v. Bean, No. 02-5197, 88 Fed. Appx. 360 (10th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
     FBI agent was not required to obtain a search warrant for a residence in addition to an arrest warrant for a suspect reasonably believed to be an occupant in order to enter a dwelling. Tyson v. Willauer, 289 F. Supp. 2d 190 (D. Conn. 2003). [N/R]
     Property owner and manager were not "seized" for purposes of a Fourth Amendment claim as a result of the issuance of arrest warrants against them when they were both able to merely pick up a summons and complaint against them at the police station and had to attend court on several occasions before charges concerning alleged housing code violations were dropped. They suffered no "deprivation of liberty" by simply being required to attend court proceedings in this manner. Their claim that the warrants were issued without probable cause did not amount to "abuse of process" either, in the absence of a claim that officials who obtained the warrants intended to accomplish something other than their criminal punishment. Zak v. Robertson, 249 F. Supp. 2d 203 (D. Conn. 2003). [N/R]
     Officers had probable cause to arrest suspect under fugitive warrant even though his height was 7 inches taller than the description in the warrant, when the warrant appeared to be valid and exactly matched the arrestee's address, date of birth, and name. Johnson v. Kings County District Attorney's Office, 763 N.Y.S.2d 635 (A.D. 2nd Dept. 2003). [N/R]
     State trooper had no duty to investigate arrestee's claim of innocence after she was arrested under a warrant for another person with the same last name and a similar birthdate, since his only job was to transport arrestee from one facility to another. Cleveland v. City of Detroit, 275 F. Supp. 2d 832 (E.D. Mich. 2003). [N/R]
     Undercover narcotics investigator acted reasonably in arresting allegedly mentally incompetent child after he was identified as the person on a videotape selling cocaine to the officer. Arrest was made pursuant to a warrant issued after the suspect on the videotape was identified from a high school yearbook and school I.D., as well as by a high school assistant principal. Wilson v. Vickery, 267 F. Supp. 2d 587 (E.D. Tex. 2002). [N/R]
     Arrest of motorist during a traffic stop under a warrant quashed by the court, but still in the sheriff's computer system, could not be the basis under Arizona law for a claim for false arrest. Deputy had a privilege to make an arrest under an "invalid warrant fair on its face." Torrez v. Knowlton, #2 CA-CV 2002-0087, 73 P.3d 1285 (Ariz. App. Div. 2 2003). [2003 LR Nov]
     Decision of federal court dismissing an arrestee's civil rights claim did not have a collateral estoppel effect barring her claim for false arrest in state court, when the federal court did not decide the issue of whether the arrest, made pursuant to a warrant, was supported by probable cause. A remaining genuine issue of whether the warrant was obtained by officers acting in "reckless disregard for the truth" by refusing to consider exculpatory evidence made available by the arrestee's spouse made summary judgment on the lawsuit improper. Martinetti v. Town of New Hartford Police, 763 N.Y.S.2d 189 (A.D. 4th Dept. 2003). [N/R]
      Officer was not entitled to qualified immunity from liability for alleged false arrest when it appeared that several statements made in connection with an application for an arrest warrant were deliberately or recklessly false, including that the drugs were found in a room where the apartment tenant's girlfriend slept, when they were actually found in a room used in an office. Holmes v. Kucynda, No. 02-11408, 321 F.3d 1069 (11th Cir. 2003). [2003 LR Oct]
     There was no evidence to show that an officer deliberately omitted from an application for an arrest warrant the purported fact that the narcotics seized during a prior search of the suspect's home had been destroyed, that the drugs actually had already been destroyed at the time that the warrant was applied for, or, if they had, that the officer knew this. Defelice v. Ingrassia, #02-7758, 66 Fed. Appx. 240 (2nd Cir. 2003). [N/R]
     Officers acted in an objectively reasonable manner by seeking and obtaining an arrest warrant for a teacher on charges of assaulting elementary school students, based on statements obtained from seven different students which corroborated each other's stories concerning the alleged physical assaults, as well as a school nurse's report documenting student physical injuries. Given these statements, a magistrate would have issued an arrest warrant even if other, allegedly exculpatory information excluded had been recited. Crone v. Connelly, No. 22156, 813 A.2d 1084 (Conn. App. 2003). [N/R]
    Neither city nor officers were liable for arrest of father under a warrant intended for his son, who had the same name, for an incident that happened at the father's house. Son had refused, during questioning by officer, to provide his birthdate, address, or even name, so that subsequent issuance of warrant for the father at that address, while resulting in the arrest of the wrong person, was not caused by unreasonable conduct of the officer or any failure of the city to take particular precautions. Noone v. City of Ocean City, No. 01-4072, 60 Fed. Appx. 904 (3rd Cir. 2003). [2003 LR Aug]
     Arrestee could not pursue a federal civil rights claim based on her arrest under a facially valid warrant after county sheriff's office warrant clerk allegedly entered incorrect information into the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database, confusing the arrestee's date of birth and social security number with those of another person with the same first and last name and middle initial. Negligence alone is not enough for a federal civil rights claim. Johnson v. Scotts Bluff County Sheriff's Dept., 245 F. Supp. 2d 1056 (D. Neb. 2003). [N/R]
     Police detective reasonably relied on complainant's information in submitting applications for arrest warrants for charging man with attempted residential entry and rape, despite inconsistencies in her story and suspect's protestations of innocence. Statements of another detective to the press essentially repeating this information could not be the basis, under Indiana state law, for a defamation claim, as they were not made with knowing falsity or in reckless disregard of the truth. Beauchamp v. City of Noblesville, Indiana, No. 02-2568, 320 F.3d 733 (7th Cir. 2003). [2003 LR Jun]
     Officer had probable cause to arrest a civilian police department employee for fraudulently receiving overtime pay when his investigation appeared to show that she was elsewhere, including at another job teaching aerobics, at times when she had allegedly received overtime pay from the police department. The arrestee's ultimate acquittal on the charges did not alter the existence of probable cause at the time of the arrest. The officer's investigation was the basis for the warrant on which the plaintiff was arrested. Dintino v. Echols, 243 F. Supp. 2d 255 (E.D. Pa. 2003). [N/R]
     Officers who obtained arrest warrant for man suspected of larceny of air compressor from construction site were not liable for alleged violations of arrestee's civil rights when any purported false statements in the affidavit for the warrant were reasonably based on the verbal and written statements of complainants' about the suspect's actions and documents showing the ownership of the compressor missing from the site. Sietins v. Joseph, 238 F. Supp. 2d 366 (D. Mass. 2003). [N/R]
     Man arrested and held for 12 days on arrest warrants intended for his twin brother sufficiently alleged that city warrant procedures constituted a "policy" for purposes of a federal civil rights due process claim against the municipality. Evidence in the case included testimony by the police chief that he was the chief policymaker for the city and was aware that the arrest of the wrong person under a warrant was "not uncommon" and was "particularly acute" for twins, yet he had not established any internal procedures to attempt to remedy this problem. Fairley v. Luman, #99-56483, 281 F.3d 913 (9th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
     State prosecutor was entitled to absolute immunity for allegedly telling an officer to delete exculpatory material from an arrest warrant application and resubmit it to the court, after the first attempt to obtain the arrest warrant was rejected. Sheehan v. Colangelo, #02-7736, 53 Fed. Appx. 584 (2nd Cir. 2002). [N/R]
     Federal appeals court did not have jurisdiction to consider an appeal of the trial court's denial of qualified immunity to a defendant arresting officer when there were disputed issues of material fact concerning the officer's actions in seeking a warrant for the plaintiff's arrest for obstruction of justice. Appellate review, before final judgment, of a denial of qualified immunity is only proper when the denial is based on an question of law, rather than of fact. Additionally, officer did not make an unqualified concession of the plaintiff's version of the facts for the purposes of the appeal. Ray v. Wolters, #00-2345, 30 Fed. Appx. 550 (6th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
     Investigator was not entitled to qualified immunity for submitting affidavit which resulted in plaintiff being arrested as a felon in possession of a firearm when he had information from another state that the plaintiff had been arrested on felony charge, but no information suggesting that he had ever been convicted of the offense. Kearse v. Moffett, No. 01-2390, 311 F.3d 891 (8th Cir. 2002). [2003 LR Mar]
     Officers who obtained arrest warrant did not make any knowingly false or reckless statements in the affidavit and the inculpatory statements of a witness to the armed robbery established probable cause in a strong enough manner that their alleged failure to also include the supposedly exculpatory statements of two other witnesses did not undermine a finding that there had been probable cause for the arrest. Meyers v. Wolkiewicz, #02-1005, 50 Fed. Appx. 549 (3rd Cir. 2002). [N/R]
     The alleged placing of an improper arrest warrant into the state computer system was insufficient to support a federal civil rights claim for an unreasonable arrest when the plaintiff arrestee did not dispute that a second outstanding warrant in the system was valid, and either warrant would have been sufficient to form the basis of his arrest following a traffic stop. Yglesias v. City of Dearborn, #01-1887, 51 Fed. Appx. 155 (6th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
     Police detective was not entitled to qualified immunity when she searched jail records for the name of a suspect in the theft of checks from a retail store and is alleged to have randomly selected one of two suspects with almost identical names as the person sought and testified to that effect before the grand jury. Kentucky v. Young, #01-6219, 51 Fed. Appx. 543 (6th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
     Arrestee could not recover damages for his arrest on Christmas Eve under a warrant intended for his identical twin brother or for his wrongful detention for four days after he protested his innocence and that he was not the person sought. Warrant was facially valid, he met the description of the person sought, and a program of immediately doing fingerprint comparison of arrestees was not required by the constitution. Panfil v. City of Chicago, No. 01-3150, 45 Fed. Appx. 528 (7th Cir. 2002). [2003 LR Feb.]
     Officers who arrested a motorist on the basis of a computerized outstanding warrant list despite his possession of a printed acknowledgment that the warrant had been recalled were entitled to qualified immunity. Federal trial court rules that the issue of the priority of the printed recall notice over the computerized indication of an outstanding warrant was not clearly established at the time of the arrest. Soto v. Bzdel, 214 F. Supp. 2d 69 (D. Mass. 2002).[N/R]
     Detective's reliance on statement of witness, without further investigation, in applying for and obtaining a warrant for a suspect's arrest, was reasonable. The fact that statements of the witness may have been false did not alter the result. Villeda v. Prince George's County, Md., 219 F. Supp. 2d 696 (D. Md. 2002). [N/R]
     Officer who filed affidavit for arrest warrant had information which provided a reasonable belief that the arrestee had caused the death of his wife, entitling him to qualified immunity from a lawsuit for violation of the arrestee's Fourth Amendment rights. Gomez v. Atkins, #01-2112, 296 F.3d 253 (4th Cir. 2002). [2002 LR Nov]
     State trooper was entitled to qualified immunity for applying for a warrant for a man's arrest for assault and battery and two violations of a domestic violence prevention order on the basis of her interview with the man's ex-wife, as this gave her a reasonable belief that there was probable cause for a warrant. Wilson v. Zellner, 200 F. Supp. 2d 1356 (M.D. Fla. 2002). [2002 LR Oct]
     Police officer did not act in an unreasonable manner by including, in an affidavit for an arrest warrant, statement by an informant that were contradicted by some other evidence, when there was also substantial evidence corroborating the informant's statements. Carter v. City of Philadelphia, #00-3671, 35 Fed. Appx. 36 (3rd Cir. 2002).
[2002 LR Sep]
     Officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment when they took the arrestee into custody under a facially valid warrant, ignoring his protests that he had already served a sentence for the probation violation for which the warrant was issued. Peacock v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 199 F. Supp. 2d 306 (D. Md. 2002). [N/R]]
     Police officer was not liable for false arrest for allegedly putting false information concerning arrestee's alleged confession to robbery in affidavit for arrest warrant. Affidavit contained other evidence which supported a finding of probable cause even without the alleged false statements. Baca v. Bennett, #01-1104, 34 Fed. Appx. 626 (10th Cir. 2002). [2002 LR Aug]
     City and officer were liable for violation of federal civil rights after officer's mistaken use of wrong form for citation made motorist believe that he could contest ticket by mail, resulting in his subsequent arrest under warrant for failure to appear in court. Intermediate New York reviewing court upholds overturning of state law negligence award, however. Marin v. City of New York, 739 N.Y.S.2d 523 (Sup. 2002) [2002 LR Aug]
     Man arrested under warrant on charges of falsely swearing, in firearms purchase form, that he had not been convicted of a felony, could pursue his false arrest claim based on genuine issue of material fact as to whether he showed the arresting officers a certificate of conviction which showed them that he had previously been convicted of a misdemeanor rather than a felony. There was also a genuine issue as to whether the investigating officer, who wrote the affidavit which was the basis for the warrant, knew that the prior conviction was only for a misdemeanor. Thompson v. Sweet, 194 F. Supp. 2d 97 (N.D.N.Y. 2002). [N/R]
     Information that police detective allegedly omitted from his probable cause affidavit for an arrest warrant for a robbery suspect would have not altered the affidavit in a material way, so that the omission did not violate the suspect's Fourth Amendment rights. Garcia v. Gasparri, 193 F. Supp. 2d 445 (D. Conn. 2002). [2002 LR Jul]
     Detective was entitled to qualified immunity from liability on false arrest claim when he was present at, but did not participate in, a probable cause hearing. Detective had no affirmative duty to correct any testimony presented that he knew to be false or misleading, and even if he had such a duty, it would be unreasonable for the detective to believe that his conduct in subsequently making an arrest under the warrant issued at the hearing was unlawful. Pacheco v. Edgington, # 00-16937, 32 Fed. Appx. 299 (9th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
     County and sheriff's department could not be held liable for civil rights violation for deputy's action in entering a home in alleged violation of the Fourth Amendment to execute a bench warrant against a third party (not the homeowner), in the absence of any evidence that the county or department had a custom or practice of relying on insufficient information in serving arrest warrants. Werbicki v. County of Los Angeles, #00-56801, 32 Fed. Appx. 302 (9th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
      Officer was entitled to qualified immunity when he made no material misrepresentations in an application for an arrest warrant for extortion and conducted a reasonable investigation first. Prosecutor's subsequent decision to dismiss the charges did not alter the result. Menebhi v. Mattos, 183 F. Supp. 2d 490 (D.R.I. 2002). [N/R]
     Police officers had probable cause to arrest timber worker on outstanding warrant for harvesting timber without a license. Officers, rather than acting out of malice, made the arrest only after confirming that the bench warrant was outstanding and after the arrestee was unable to provide documentary proof supporting his claim that he had paid the fine for the offense. Fuller v. Troup County, No. A01A1670, 558 S.E.2d 777 (Ga. App. 2002). [N/R]
    An objectively reasonable officer could conclude that the failure to obtain a Washington state warrant after arresting a suspect in that state on a facially valid Oregon felony arrest warrant did not violate the suspect's constitutional rights. Case v. Kitsap County Sheriff's Department, No. 98-36260, 249 F.3d 921 (9th Cir. 2001). [N/R]
    Search of man's residence under warrant was not rendered unreasonable because it was conducted while his children waited for the school bus outside the home, in the absence of any claim that the officers harmed or threatened the children in any way. Handcuffing of man for two hours while they searched his home under the warrant did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights, particularly when they also arrived armed with an arrest warrant. Martin v. Rodriguez, 154 F. Supp. 2d 306 (D. Conn. 2001). [N/R]
     Officers had probable cause to arrest, with warrant, man for criminal sexual assault of a child based on purported victim's statements, bloodstains in victim's underwear, medical evidence consistent with sexual abuse, and evidence indicating that the arrestee was the only adult interacting with children at the scene. Later dismissal of charges, based on rulings suppressing minor's identification of him as "suggestive and unreliable," and preventing the state from using certain hearsay statements attributed to minor in the course of the investigation did not alter the result. Predmore v. Schwartz, No. 99-3198, 141 F. Supp. 2d 1150 (C.D. Ill. 2001). [N/R]
     Officers who arrested plaintiff with a facially valid warrant had no obligation to investigate or accept arrestee's claim that the warrant described another person with the same name. Sheriff's office did not know arrestee's date of birth, social security number or other identifying information on the date of the arrest. Deputy later took steps to secure arrestee's release when it became apparent that he was not the person sought in the warrant. Garcia v. County of Bucks, Pa., No. CIV. A. 00-2446, 155 F. Supp. 2d 259 (E.D. Pa. 2001). [N/R]
     Officer's alleged misrepresentations in affidavit for arrest warrant were not knowing. County did not violate the arrestee's Fourth Amendment rights by failing to require that a prosecutor review and approve officers' arrest warrant affidavits. Freeman v. Murray, No. 3:99CV2179, 163 F. Supp. 2d 478 (M.D. Pa. 2001). [2002 LR Feb]
     347:166 Officers' entry into home with arrest warrant for man believed to be staying there, based on unverified anonymous tip would be unlawful if they did not have a reasonable belief that he lived there, as opposed to being a guest in the home; disputed facts required further proceedings. Watts v. County of Sacramento, #00-15099, 256 F.3d 886 (9th Cir. 2001).
     345:134 Woman mistakenly arrested under warrant actually intended for her sister-in-law, who sometimes used her name as an alias, was properly awarded $100,000 for 3 hours she was kept in custody after a judge ordered her released. Young v. City of Little Rock, No. 99-3595EA, 249 F.3d 730 (8th Cir. 2001).
     342:94 Officer was not liable for arresting female motorist on the basis of a recalled warrant, when the officer was unaware it was recalled; search requiring motorist to expose and rearrange her undergarments before using bathroom at station, however, was unreasonable when neither the crime involved in the arrest or any other circumstances created any suspicion that arrestee could be concealing contraband. Mason v. Village of Babylon, 124 F. Supp. 2d 807 (E.D.N.Y. 2000).
     342:85 Officer was not entitled to qualified immunity for bringing arrestee to county jail when arrest warrant plainly stated that she was to be brought "before a judge immediately" and allowed to pay a $235 cash bail; arrestee instead spent three days in jail and was twice strip searched; negligent failure by county personnel to recall bail warrant, however, could not be the basis for a federal civil rights claim. Miller v. Kennebec County, No. 99-2079, 219 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2000).
     342:85 Officer liable for $35,000 for civil rights violation and false imprisonment of attorney arrested for alleged interference with apprehension of two of his clients; lawsuit asserted officer and prosecutor obtained arrest warrant based on false/misleading information; prosecutor also liable for $65,000. Etoch v. Newton, Ark., No. CIV-96-105, Phillips County Cir. Ct., Ark., Sept. 14, 2000, reported in ATLA Law Rptr. (Feb. 2001).
     341:69 Warrant clerk was not liable for arrest of wrong man after she accidentally transposed criminal complaint numbers in issuing arrest warrant, as she did not intend to cause his detention, but arresting officer might be liable if he had reason to believe that warrant had been erroneously issued. Berg v. County of Allegheny, No. 98- 3557, 219 F.3d 261 (3rd Cir. 2000).
     339:43 Officer had probable cause to arrest homeowner for theft of services based on statements by a number of businesses that he had refused to pay for work done on his residence; officer did not act improperly or deceive prosecutor who obtained warrant by failing to detail his personal involvement in a prior similar dispute involving the homeowner. Neiman v. Keane, #99-3286, 232 F.3d 577 (7th Cir. 2000).
     338:21 Officer acted reasonably in basing his affidavit for an arrest warrant on bank tellers' identification of woman in surveillance photo as bank robber and identification of woman in photo as the person named in the warrant by persons who knew her. Freeman v. County of Bexar, No. 99-50608, 210 F.3d 550 (5th Cir. 2000).
     338:19 Officer was entitled to official immunity against liability for malicious prosecution under Georgia state law for obtaining arrest warrants, in the absence of any proof that he acted with "actual malice" or intent to cause harm. Todd v. Kelly, No. A00A0712, 535 S.E.2d 540 (Ga. App. 2000).
     337:6 Arrest of store customer for writing check returned for insufficient funds, when made pursuant to a valid arrest warrant, was "presumptively made with probable cause"; in the absence of a showing of fraud, perjury, or the misrepresentation or falsification of evidence, her false arrest claim must be dismissed. Martinetti v. Town of New Hartford Police Dept., 112 F. Supp. 2d 251 (N.D.N.Y. 2000).
     333:135 Officer could not be held liable for deliberately providing false information in an affidavit for an arrest warrant when there was no evidence that he knew there was any problem with the truthfulness of the witnesses who gave statements. Dutton v. Montgomery County, MD., 94 F.Supp. 2d 663 (D. Md. 2000).
     334:152 Booking officer was liable for $10,000 to female motorist held in custody for six days under an arrest warrant that was actually for her sister; jury could reasonably conclude that officer had received and ignored a computer message that the arrestee's fingerprints did not match those on file for the person sought, despite the officer's denial that she got the message. Kennell v. Gates, #99-1931, 215 F.3d 825 (8th Cir. 2000).
     325:5 Officers acted reasonably in entering home to make an arrest based on ten-year-old bench warrant for welfare fraud, even though they also arrested suspect for alleged involvement in an assault in a tavern; additional evidence also showed consent for entry, which would have justified warrantless arrest. Greer v. Anne Arundel County, Md., 46 F.Supp. 2d 416 (D. Md. 1999).
     325:6 Officers were not liable for arresting a man pursuant to a warrant which actually sought his son; father and son had the same name except for the term "Jr.," a fact that the officers were unaware of and which the father did not bring to their attention. Joye v. Richland County Sheriff's Dept., 47 F.Supp. 2d 663 (D.S.C. 1999).
     328:55 State troopers were not liable for continuing to hold, for a day and a half, arrestee taken into custody pursuant to a valid arrest warrant, after they gradually began to suspect he was not the person actually sought; arrest warrant was issued based on original suspect having assumed another man's identity. Brady v. Dill, #98- 2293, 187 F.3d 104 (1st Cir. 1999).
     329:68 Officers and city were not liable for false arrest or malicious prosecution to man arrested pursuant to valid arrest warrants for theft and criminal trespass, despite the fact that he was not actually the person named in the warrants; arrestee had the same first and last name as suspect sought, lived at the address named in the warrant, and generally fit the description of the suspect. Montgomery v. City of Montgomery, No. 2971214, 732 So. 2d 305 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999).
     329:69 Officers not liable for failure to release arrestee after they allegedly learned he was not the suspect in an attack; arrestee was taken into custody under valid warrant and officers did not have authority to release him without a judicial order. Miller v. Bd. of County Commissioners of County of Rogers, 46 F.Supp. 2d 1210 (N.D. Okl. 1999).
     329:75 Alabama city, accused of causing a man's arrest in another county by failure to recall an arrest warrant, was entitled to have venue of lawsuit moved to county in which it was located and in which its allegedly wrongful acts had occurred. Greensboro, Ex Parte, Re: Ridgeway v. City of Butler, No. 1971738, 730 So. 2d 157 (Ala. 1999).
     330:88 Police officer had probable cause to arrest man pursuant to an arrest warrant for robbery when three persons identified him in a photo array; while arrestee had a valid alibi showing that he was not in town at the time of the robbery, documents proving this were not provided until months after the arrest. Franklin v. Consolidated Government of Columbus, Georgia, 512 S.E.2d 352 (Ga. App. 1999).
     323:169 Connecticut Supreme Court upholds $930,000 false arrest/malicious prosecution award against two detectives who procured warrant for his arrest; plaintiff argued that omissions in affidavit for warrant resulted in his arrest and prosecution without probable cause. Ham v. Greene, 729 A.2d 740 (Conn. 1999).
     321:136 Actions of officers in obtaining and executing arrest warrant against individual with the same first and last name, as well as middle initial, as suspect sought was, at most negligent, and could not support the arrestee's federal civil rights lawsuit, since defendant officers did not act recklessly. Lane v. Sarpy County, #98- 2048, 165 F.3d 623 (8th Cir. 1999).
     320:121 Existence of arrest warrant did not immunize officers from liability for false arrest and imprisonment when plaintiff arrestee claimed that they knew that there was no probable cause for the arrest and obtained the warrant only because of the influence of a town board member. Chase v. Town of Camillus, 668 N.Y.S.2d 830 (A.D. 1998).
     318:87 Factual issue existed as to whether deputy sheriffs, who had possession of photograph of man sought in search warrant, as well as physical description including scars detainee did not have, should have used more care in determining that detainee was person sought in warrant. Gray v. Cuyahoga County Sheriff's Dept., #97-1379, 150 F.3d 579 (6th Cir. 1998).
     316:53 Deputy sheriffs violated fellow deputy's rights by failing to turn over possibly exculpatory evidence to state investigator looking into allegation that deputy compelled prostitute in custody to perform oral sex on him in exchange for promise of food; defendants were entitled to qualified immunity, however, when their violation was negligent or careless, rather than intentional; no liability for state investigator who obtained arrest warrant. Ahlers v. Schebh, 994 F.Supp. 856 (E.D. Mich. 1998).
     315:41 Officers were not liable for holding man in custody who had the same name, social security number, and birthdate as suspect sought in fugitive warrant; failure to act on other allegedly exculpatory information was, at most, negligence, and could not result in federal civil rights liability. Sanchez v. Swyden, #96-40557, 139 F.3d 464 (5th Cir. 1998).
     289:7 Law enforcement officials were properly granted summary judgment in lawsuit based, in part, on allegedly false statements in arrest warrant affidavit; even if such statements were false, remaining true statements in arrest warrant affidavit, standing alone, were sufficient to provide probable cause for arrest. Taylor v. Meacham, 82 F.3d 1556 (10th Cir. 1996).
     290:22 City, police chief, and county sheriff were not liable for officer's arrest of man on felony warrant for charges which were previously resolved; court had never recalled bench warrant, so even 24-hour access to court records would not have altered information that warrant was still outstanding. Harris v. City of Marion, Ind., 79 F.3d 56 (7th Cir. 1996).
     295:102 Police investigator could have reasonably believed that totality of circumstances provided probable cause for arrest of long-time roommate of confessed drug dealer for involvement in drug offenses; investigator's alleged failure to promptly give exculpatory evidence to prosecutor following arrest did not violate arrestee's rights. Taylor v. Waters, 81 F.3d 429 (4th Cir. 1996).
     295:103 Identification of suspect as armed robber by three witnesses was sufficient to provide probable cause for arrest; warrant was properly issued even though affidavit for warrant only mentioned one of the three identifications, and probable cause to detain arrestee continued to exist even after witness named in affidavit recanted her identification. Rowe v. Romano, 940 F.Supp. 798 (E.D. Pa. 1996).
     298:153 False arrest claim could not be based, under Louisiana state law, on arrest made pursuant to a facially valid warrant. Winn v. City of Alexandria, 685 So.2d 281 (La. App. 1996).
     279:40 Arresting deputy and jail officer were entitled to rely on dispatcher's information that there was an outstanding arrest warrant for female motorist, despite her protestations of mistaken identity; dispatcher, however, was not entitled to qualified immunity in suit based on him conveying to deputy information about warrant that was actually for arrestee's twin sister, with the same birthdate but a different first name. Bibart v. Stachowiak, 888 F.Supp. 864 (N.D.Ill. 1995). [Cross- reference: Defenses: Qualified (Good-Faith). Immunity].
     279:41 Arrest of vehicle passenger under facially valid warrant did not violate his rights when officer was informed it was for a person with passenger's name, birthdate, race, residence, and approximate weight, and passenger indicated that he knew about case in which warrant had been issued. White v. Olig, 56 F.3d 817 (7th Cir. 1995).
     280:55 Police officer who arrested Air National Guard security guard for "impersonating" a law enforcement officer was entitled to qualified immunity from liability in federal civil rights lawsuit; it was not clearly established under state law whether such a security guard was a "law enforcement officer" in West Virginia. Jordan v. Town of Pratt, 886 F.Supp. 555 (S.D.W.Va. 1995). [Cross-reference: Defenses: Qualified (Good- Faith). Immunity].
     283:103 Federal officers' arrest of woman with same name, social security number, birthdate, birthplace, and abdominal scar as suspect sought in arrest warrant was objectively reasonable. Rodriguez v. U.S., 54 F.3d 41 (1st Cir. 1995). [Cross-reference: Federal Tort Claims Act].
     283:104 Under Florida state law, a claim for false arrest/false imprisonment could not be based on an arrest made pursuant to lawful authority, such as a capias. Jackson v. Navarro, 665 So.2d 340 (Fla. App. 1995).
     284:118 Arrest of jail visitor on outstanding facially valid arrest warrants was proper despite fact that arrestee asserted that statute of limitations had run on charges in warrant; arresting officers had no obligation to determine whether statute of limitations defense was meritorious and were entitled to qualified immunity for making arrest. Pickens v. Hollowell, 59 F.3d 1203 (11th Cir. 1995). [Cross-reference: Defenses: Qualified (Good-Faith). Immunity].
     {N/R} Officer who swore out complaint charging former tenant's landlord with felony theft lacked probable cause as a matter of law and was liable for Fourth Amendment violation. Peterson v. City of Plymouth, 60 F.3d 469 (8th Cir. 1995).
     266:24 Arrest of motorist who largely met description contained in arrest warrant was supported by probable cause despite some variations in weight and date of birth. Bennett v. City of Yonkers, 859 F.Supp. 92 (S.D.N.Y. 1994).
     266:25 Officer was entitled to qualified immunity for arresting woman, pursuant to warrant, who met description in warrant, had same nickname as person sought, and was found in expected location, despite the fact that her name was different and that he took her driver's license and put it in his pocket without looking at it. Blackwell v. Barton, 34 F.3d 298 (5th Cir. 1994).
     267:42 Officer was justified in using deadly force against man who advanced on him waving bat and threatening to kill the officer when officer attempted to serve arrest warrant on him; officers had probable cause to obtain arrest warrant for man based on wife's statements that he hit her. James v. City of Chester, 852 F.Supp. 1288 (D.S.C. 1994).
     270:88 Officers and city were not liable for false arrest when homeowner was arrested pursuant to a valid bench warrant on which his name was misspelled; warrant stated correct address and "uniqueness" of name indicated that correct person was being arrested. Kis v. County of Schuylkill, 866 F.Supp. 1462 (E.D.Pa. 1994).
     273:138 City and county were not liable for alleged negligence in failing to communicate to court that motorist had successfully completed "drinking and driving evaluation program," resulting in issuance of a bench warrant for his arrest. Shea v. County of Erie, 609 N.Y.S.2d 473 (A.D. 1994).
     273:138 Arrestee's mere denial that he sold cocaine to undercover officer was insufficient to bar summary judgment to officer in civil rights lawsuit claiming that officer lied in affidavit used for two arrest warrants naming arrestee as drug seller. Moody v. St. Charles County, 23 F.3d 1410 (8th Cir. 1994).
     {N/R} Detective who obtained arrest warrant allegedly on the basis of knowingly false information was not entitled to qualified immunity. Kelly v. Curtis, 21 F.3d 1544 (11th Cir. 1994).
     {N/R} Florida law authorizing use of reasonable force to enter house to make arrest pursuant to arrest warrant was facially constitutional but unconstitutionally applied to residence of third party. McClain v. Crowder, 840 F.Supp. 897 (S.D. Fla. 1994).
     City and county could not be held liable for inadequate training of officers in the need for probable cause for an arrest when officer who presented affidavit for arrest warrant was himself entitled to qualified immunity because he acted as a reasonable officer in doing so on the basis of information he had at the time. Kohl v. Casson, 5 F.3d 1141 (8th Cir. 1993).
     False arrest suit brought by arrestee taken into custody pursuant to warrant was not barred by sovereign immunity under Florida state law. Thomas v. Florida Game and Fresh Water Commission, 627 So.2d 541 (Fla. App. 1993).
     Affidavit for arrest warrant provided probable cause for arrest of fraternity "pledge" as suspected rapist; failure to note minor discrepancies in description and other information in affidavit did not undermine probable cause when victim positively identified suspect from photographic array as the man who allegedly raped her at a fraternity party. Lallemand v. University of Rhode Island, 9 F.3d 214 (1st Cir. 1993).
     Oklahoma arrest warrant gave Arkansas law enforcement officers probable cause to arrest suspect in Arkansas, even if warrant was not in their possession. Brock v. Logan County Sheriff's Dept. of Ark., 3 F.3d 1215 (8th Cir. 1993).
     Resident of another state in Arkansas to testify in a civil trial was not immune from arrest while there despite having received a subpoena, when subpoena was not enforceable under state law; arrestee's false arrest/malicious prosecution suit properly dismissed. McNees v. Mountain Home, Ar., 993 F.2d 1359 (8th Cir. 1993).
     Deputy liable for $50,000 to arrestee for copying information from NCIC report onto arrest report and affidavit for fugitive warrant rather than seeking to obtain information from her or her driver's license; woman arrested as wanted fugitive and extradited to other state was not the fugitive sought and did not match the description given on NCIC report. Cannon v. Macon County, 1 F.3d 1558 (11th Cir. 1993).
     State trooper liable for $375,000 to man mistakenly arrested as car driver who engaged in videotaped incident in a highway rest area rest room; trooper failed to investigate car owner's explanation that she had lent the vehicle to her brother, instead encouraging issuance of arrest warrant for her husband as the offender. Flones v. Dalman, 502 N.W.2d 725 (Mich. App. 1993).
     Officers did not violate arrestee's constitutional rights by arresting him pursuant to a facially valid arrest warrant issued by another town, even if they allegedly learned facts concerning the charges which called the arrestee's guilt into question. Bourgon v. Post, 594 N.Y.S. 2d 835 (A.D. 1993).
     Police officer was entitled to qualified immunity for utilizing uncorroborated statements of three informants to obtain warrant for arrest of former correctional officer on charges of aiding and abetting inmate's escape; later decision by prosecutor not to proceed with prosecution did not alter determination of probable cause by judge who issued warrant. Hoffman v. Reali, 973 F.2d 980 (1st Cir. 1992).
     Non-expert voice identification by officer based on 60 second tape made with hand held tape recorder and presence of arrestee's name and address on rolodex of gambling premises was insufficient to entitle officer to qualified immunity on suit brought against subsequent arrest with warrant. Ricci v. Urso, 974 F.2d 5 (1st Cir. 1992).
     Arrestee's claim that undercover officers arrested him without cause, beating him until he passed out while handcuffed, and his wife's claim that another officer pointed a gun at her and her daughter and threatened to kill her husband were sufficient to state causes of action for violation of civil rights. Murphy v. Lancaster, 960 F.2d 746 (8th Cir. 1992).
     State trooper was entitled to qualified immunity for affidavits to obtain arrest warrants when probable cause for arrests would still exist even if affidavits were amended to include information plaintiffs complained he omitted. Cartier v. Lussier, 955 F.2d 841 (2nd Cir. 1992).
     Texas appeals court overturns $25,000 award to man arrested on warrant mistakenly not withdrawn; warrant was not "tangible personal property" so its misuse was not actionable under state Tort Claims Act. Jefferson County v. Sterk, 830 S.W.2d 260 (Tex. App. 1992).
     Police officers were entitled to qualified immunity for entering homeowner's house and detaining him while executing a warrant intended for his son, who had the same name. Mensh v. Dyer, 956 F.2d 36 (4th Cir. 1992).
     Officers who refused to release arrestee detained on the basis of computer listing of arrest warrant until receipt of teletyped confirmation that warrant was withdrawn were entitled to qualified immunity. Duckett v. City of Cedar Park, Texas, 950 F.2d 272 (5th Cir. 1992).
     Pawn shop employee's refusal to let officer take possession of stolen ring after he voluntarily displayed it to officer justified obtaining arrest warrant. Loustalot v. Rice, 764 F.Supp. 1080 (M.D. La. 1991).
     Man arrested upon warrant based on sworn complaint of his wife could not sue for false arrest; valid warrant precluded lawsuit; officer's alleged amorous interest in arrestee's wife did not alter result. St. John v. Town of Marlborough, 558 N.Y.S. 2d 332 (A.D. 1990).
     Officer did not violate plaintiff's fourth amendment rights by arresting her without warrant for misdemeanor committed before he was present. Barry v. Fowler, 902 F.2d 770 (9th Cir. 1990).
     Teletype message from department of corrections provided probable cause to arrest man for escape, despite claim that warrant was invalid. Brooks v. City of Dothan Police Department, 562 So.2d 162 (Ala.).
     Man mistakenly arrested because of felony warrant for suspect with the same name did not suffer a constitutional deprivation because of city's failure to implement a more effective suspect identification system. White v. City of Muskegon, Mich., 749 F.Supp. 829 (W.D. Mich. 1990).
     Sheriff who applied for warrant for father arrested for alleged kidnap of his daughter was entitled to qualified immunity. Lowrance v. Pflueger, 878 F.2d 1014 (7th Cir. 1989).
     Arrest of "psychic surgeon" with valid warrant enforcing valid statute did not violate first amendment religious freedom. Farley v. Henderson, 875 F.2d 231 (9th Cir. 1989).
     Man mistakenly arrested for bank robbery which was filmed awarded $304,355; city liable for inadequate training. Clipper v. Takoma Park, 876 F.2d 17 (4th Cir. 1989).
     City violated detainee's constitutional right to prompt judicial hearing by detaining him two days without arraignment Willis v. Bell, 726 F.Supp. 1118 (N.D.Ill. 1989).
     Detention of intoxicated arrestees for 19 hours without probable cause hearing because they were too drunk to be interviewed was not unreasonable Kanekoa v. City and County of Honolulu, 879 F.2d 607 (9th Cir. 1989).
     Issuance of warrant for arrest of 42-year-old woman with similar name to 24-year-old suspect in drug offense was objectively unreasonable. Tillman v. Coley, 702 F.Supp. 1571 (M.D. Ga. 1989).
     Deputy sheriffs not liable for making arrest under bench warrant which had been recalled. Mitchell v. Aluisi, 872 F.2d 577 (4th Cir. 1989).
     Officer's failure to follow policy and procedure in making arrest on warrant did not deprive him of good faith defense. Edwards v. Baer, 863 F.2d 606 (8th Cir. 1988).
     Later discovery of outstanding arrest warrant would not purge taint of earlier allegedly illegal arrest. Bruce v. Perkins, 701 F Supp. 163 (N.D.Ill. 1988).
     Arresting officers not liable for three arrests of man with same name, birth date, address and physical description as named in warrant. Lopez v. City of Oxnard, 254 Cal. Rptr. 556 (Cal. App. 1989).
     Officers not liable under Section 1983 for arresting woman whose description did not match the description on the warrant; state action is required in alleging careless execution of warrant. Johnson v. Miller, 680 F.2d 39 (7th Cir. 1982).
     Officer did not violate plaintiff's right when he arrested man pursuant to a warrant instead of issuing him a summons. Hearn v. Hudson, 549 F.Supp. 949, (W.D. Va. 1982).
     False arrest and imprisonment suit dismissed since arrest was made pursuant to valid warrant. Benjamin v. United States, 554 F.Supp. 82 (E.D. N.Y. 1982).
     No liability for officers' arrest with warrant based on witness identification. Land v. Teeple, 425 So.2d 237 (La. App. 1982).
     Officers properly arrested suspect pursuant to warrant; not all items in home were properly seized. Thomas v. Maxan, 563 F.Supp. 178 (N.D.Tex. 1983).
     Officer could be liable for failing to investigate whether warrant information was correct when he arrested wrong man with same name on warrant. Dennis v. State, 467 N.Y.S. 2d 737 (App. 1983); affirming 449 N.Y.S. 2d 602.
     No liability for arrest of plaintiff and search of his home; good faith defense afforded sheriff. Cotner v. Sharp, 567 F.Supp. 888 (W.D. Okl. 1983).
     Complaints serve as probable cause to arrest "peeping tom." Armstead v. Town of Harrison, 579 F.Supp. 777 (S.D. N.Y. 1984).
     City and mayor liable for malicious arrest of college president. Thomas v. Sams, 734 F.2d 185 (5th Cir. 1984).
     Over $200,000 awarded against city for arrest of wrong person. Hernandez v. Salt Lake, 686 P. 2d 251 (Nev. 1984).
     Mistaken arrest not grounds for recovery. Gero v. Henault, 740 F.2d 78 (1st Cir. 1984).
     Trooper accused of abusing his status to obtain property for friend. Hunt v. Chapman, 458 So.2d 206 (La. App. 1984).
     Arrest based on out-of-state warrant is valid. Mitchell v. Windham, 469 So.2d 381 (La. App. 1985).
     Arrest with warrant upheld. Rivera v. County of Monroe, 482 N.Y.S. 2d 164 (A.D. 4 Dept. 1984).
     Plaintiff alleges police chief knew or should have known he was in jail at the time informant linked him to drug transaction. Olson v. Tyler, 771 F.2d 277 (7th Cir. 1985).
     City must face liability as would private corporation for employee's act; dissenting judge says decision improperly applies respondent superior. Longfellow v. City of Newark, 480 N.E. 2d 432 (Ohio 1985).
     No liability for clerical error resulting in false arrest; no liability for minor child's detainment at police station. Thibodeaux v. Arceneaux, 618 F.Supp. 24 (D.C. La. 1985).
     No showing officer hypnotized victim for statements. Conley v. Whitener, 617 F.Supp. 36 (D.C. Mo. 1985).
     Court reverses judgment; city not liable over wrong address printed on warrant. Davis v. City of Syracuse, 498 N.Y.S. 2d 355 (1985).
     Oregon establishes liability rule on false arrest suits when wrong person is arrested. Pierson v. Multnomah County, 718 P. 2d 738 (Or. 1986).
     High state court rules officer not immune for arrest of person he believed to be named in warrant. Kane v. Anderson, 509 A. 2d 656 (Me. 1986).
     Police chief could be liable for failure to establish guidelines for criminal investigations, and for failure to investigate officer's background. Woodley v. Town of Nantucket, 645 F.Supp. 1365 (D. Mass. 1986,).
     Sheriff not vicariously liable for deputies' torts; one- year limitation period applies in mistaken arrests pursuant to warrant. Green v. . County of Fulton, 511 N.Y.S. 2d 150 (A.D. 3 Dept. 1987).
     Good faith defense is a question for the jury in mistaken arrest suit; county not liable for acts of sheriff or deputies. Delk v. Bd. of Com'rs of Delaware County, 503 N.E. 2d 436 (Ind. App. 1987).
     Arrest of individual whose name, race and year of birth corresponded to individual named in warrant was reasonable, even though address and birth date was different. Patton v. Przybylski, 822 F.2d 697 (7th Cir. 1987).
     Arrest of individual whose name matched suspects alias, was same race and had birth date only 12 days apart from that of suspect was reasonable. Brown v. Patterson, 823 F.2d 167 (7th Cir. 1987).
     No liability for making arrest on basis of information in computerized system or detaining arrestee until determining fingerprints did not match person's named in warrant. Howard v. Regional Transit Authority, 667 F.Supp. 540 (N.D.Ohio 1987).
     Warrant invalid on its face when it did not state the name of the issuing court. Titus v. Hill, 521 N.Y.S. 2d 932 (A.D. 1987).
     Deputies not liable for arrest of parents for sexual abuse of children; entitled to qualified immunity. In Re Scott County Master Docket, 672 F.Supp. 1152 (D. Minn. 1987).
     City not liable for arrest of man based on statements of two witnesses positively identifying him as robber, despite their later inability to identify him at lineup. Romeo v. County of Oneida, 523 N.Y.S. 2d 318 (A.D. 1987).
     Officer had probable cause to arrest man for driving while intoxicated; car does not have to be moving for violation. Moll v. Nichols, 679 F.Supp. 191 (N.D.N.Y. 1988).
     Arrest warrant containing "John Doe" general description of defendant was insufficient; supplementation of warrant by information contained in attached documents not allowed. McIntyre v. State, 530 N.Y.S. 2d 898 (A.D. 1988).
     Officer liable for making false statements which prosecutor utilized in seeking arrest warrant. Drake v. Lawrence, 524 N.E. 2d 337 (Ind. App. 1988).

Back to list of subjects             Back to Legal Publications Menu