AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Civil Liability of
Law Enforcement Agencies & Personnel
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu
False Arrest/Imprisonment: Warrant
Monthly LawJournal Article: Civil Liability and Arrests With Warrants - Part 1 of 4, 2019 (3) AELE Mo. L. J. 101.
Monthly LawJournal Article: Civil Liability and Arrests With Warrants - Part 2 of 4, 2019 (4) AELE Mo. L. J. 101.
Monthly LawJournal Article: Civil Liability and Arrests With Warrants - Part 3 of 4, 2019 (5) AELE Mo. L. J. 101.
Monthly LawJournal Article: Civil Liability and Arrests With Warrants - Part 4 of 4, 2019 (6) AELE Mo. L. J. 101.
Monthly LawJournal Article: U.S. Supreme Court Revisits the Basics of Probable Cause and Qualified Immunity, 2018 (3) AELE Mo. L. J. 101.
An arrestee claimed that police officers violated his federal constitutional and Connecticut state law rights in investigating and arresting him for assaulting a guest at a college New Year’s Eve party. The charges were later dropped. A federal appeals court ruled that the defendant officers were entitled to qualified immunity. The officers did not need probable cause to interview the plaintiff on January 2, 2013 since he was not under arrest during the interview. Subsequently, during the investigation there was probable cause for his arrest warrant based on a non-defective eyewitness identification without regard to his allegedly coerced statements. His statements from the interview were not necessary to establish probable cause and therefore he could not claim that their use was in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The police procedures used at his interview were not so egregious or shocking as to violate Fourteenth Amendment due process or to support a state claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Mara v. Rilling, #17-3326, 921 F.3d 48 (2nd Cir. 2019).
A federal appeals court upheld the denial of summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity to a school attendance officer on an aunt's claim that he violated her Fourth Amendment rights by swearing an arrest warrant affidavit against her for failing to ensure that a child attended school. There was no qualified immunity where the affidavit for the warrant lacked any facts to establish probable cause in violation of Malley v. Briggs, #84-1586, 475 U.S. 335 (1986), and simply identified the aunt, recited the charged offense, and cited the corresponding Mississippi statutes. Summary judgment was proper, however, on the aunt’s claim under Franks v. Delaware #77-5176. 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (holding that where a warrant affidavit contains a statement, necessary to the finding of probable cause, that is demonstrated to be both false and included by an affiant knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, the warrant is not valid) because a plaintiff could not hold an officer liable under Franks for intentionally omitting important exculpatory information from an arrest warrant affidavit when the officer had also committed a Malley violation by presenting a facially deficient warrant affidavit lacking probable cause to the issuing judge. Blake v. Lambert, #18-60176, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 10149, 2019 WL 1498194 (5th Cir.).
The plaintiff, a teacher, filed suit against a criminal investigator, for false arrest under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that he knowingly or recklessly misstated material facts in the affidavit in support of a warrant for his arrest for allegedly communicating a false report. Excising the statements that the teacher initiated and communicated a report that she knew was false and baseless, and that the report caused the police investigators to seize several public school computers and documents for forensic reviews, it was difficult to see how the remaining allegations established probable cause for the specific offense of false alarm or report. The evidence was sufficient, however, to generate probable cause that the teacher violated Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 37.08's “false report” offense when she met with the investigator. A federal appeals court reversed the denial of the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, ruling that, although the validity of the arrest could not be saved by facts stated in the warrant sufficient to establish probable cause for a different charge from that sought in the warrant, the defendant was entitled to qualified immunity because this was not clearly established at the time of his conduct. Arizmendi v. Gabbert, #17-40597, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 9009, 2019 WL 134817 (5th Cir.).
An arrestee claimed that the county sheriff and others had conspired to violate his civil rights in an action arising from the political feud in Karnes County, Texas stemming from the Eagle Ford Shale oil boom. A federal appeals court reversed the trial court's denial of qualified immunity to the county sheriff and the deputy sheriff. The court held that the trial court erred in denying qualified immunity to the county sheriff and deputy sheriff given plaintiff’s “bare-bones” allegations that the defendants arrested him under an arrest warrant for criminal harassment purely because of their political feud with the plaintiff’s wife, who was elected a county judge, voiced strong opinions concerning how the oil boom was being handled, and subsequently resigned. The court held that the plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. 1985 claim failed because he failed to allege facts sufficient to show an actual deprivation of his rights. Furthermore, the plaintiff's conspiracy to violate 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim failed because the plaintiff only asserted legal allegations, unsupported by sufficient factual content, that was insufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. Shaw v. Villanueva, #17-50937, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 7131, 2019 WL 1110275 (5th Cir. 2019).
A number of police officers arrested on charges of public corruption sued the arresting officers and other defendants, claiming that their constitutional rights were violated because the defendants intentionally omitted exonerating information from the probable cause affidavits that secured their arrest warrants. A federal appeals court ruled that even if the omitted information had been included in the affidavits, there would still have been probable cause to believe that each of the plaintiffs had engaged in a scheme to defraud in violation of Florida state law. Therefore, the court held that there was no constitutional error in the plaintiffs’ arrests pursuant to warrants based on those affidavits, and the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. Paez v. Mulvey, #16-16863, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 3917, 2019 WL 489048 (11th Cir.).
A man charged with murdering his elderly mother was held in custody for two months. In a federal civil rights lawsuit, he claimed that the detective who investigated the case submitted a probable cause affidavit that contained lies and omitted exculpatory evidence. The case was dismissed by the prosecutor as a result of evidentiary problems. The detective sought qualified immunity. A federal appeals court upheld the denial of that defense. The detective conceded, for purposes of appeal, that he knowingly or recklessly made false statements in the probable cause affidavit, arguing that knowingly or recklessly misleading the magistrate in a probable cause affidavit only violates the Fourth Amendment if the omissions and lies were material to probable cause. The appeals court rejected that argument. Materiality depends on whether the affidavit demonstrates probable cause when the lies are taken out and the exculpatory evidence is added in. When that is done in this case, the affidavit failed to establish probable cause to believe that the plaintiff murdered his mother. It is clearly established that it violates the Fourth Amendment “to use deliberately falsified allegations to demonstrate probable cause,” so the detective was not entitled to qualified immunity. It was unremarkable that the plaintiff had a key to his mother’s apartment, checked on her frequently, and stood to inherit from her. There was conflicting evidence on the detective’s theory that the mother was murdered by someone she knew rather than a thief, and any inference from the plaintiff’s refusal to take a polygraph was weak. Further, the observable evidence supported the plaintiff’s description of his mother as having been hit in the head, even though he had not looked under the blanket, which did not mean that he was the one who had hit her. Rainsberger v. Benner, #17-2521, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 1325 (7th Cir.).
A federal appeals court upheld a trial court ruling that a city was not immune from a federal civil rights suit in a proposed class action claiming that the city’s policy or custom of automatically issuing arrest warrants was unconstitutional. In this case, the city automatically issues an arrest warrant whenever someone ticketed for violating its traffic and vehicle laws fails to pay a fine or appear in court. The court held that municipalities, unlike states, did not enjoy a constitutionally protected immunity from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. The court rejected the city's argument that it enacted or maintained the contested practices as an arm of the state, as well as the city’s contention that it was also immune from suit since all of the individuals the complaint identified as participating in the contested practices were personally immune from suit. The court had long held that a municipality may be held liable for its unconstitutional policy or custom even when no official has been found personally liable for his conduct under the policy or custom. Webb v. City of Maplewood, #17-2381, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 11748 (8th Cir.).
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).