Anderson v. Perez, CIVIL ACTION NO: 14-6747
| Decision Date | 24 August 2015 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO: 14-6747 |
| Parties | RHAHEEM ANDERSON v. DETECTIVE PAUL PEREZ |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Police officers must conscientiously gather evidence necessary to present truthful Affidavits of Probable Cause to allow an independent judge to evaluate the proffered evidence and, if merited, issue an arrest warrant. Courts have repeatedly held police officers can rely on eyewitness interviews and identifications of suspects as part of the probable cause analysis. After arrest, if a defendant wins at trial, he may believe his trial success proves the police were blindly wrong all along and seek civil rights and state law damages for false arrest/imprisonment, malicious prosecution, invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. We begin by examining whether a plaintiff adduces evidence the police officer did not have a fair probability, under the totality of the circumstances, to believe the plaintiff committed a crime. After having defeated the criminal charges in state court and then discovery on his civil rights claims before us, Plaintiff Rhaheem Anderson does not adduce evidence sufficient to overcome the substantial specific facts, including eyewitness interview and identification, informing Detective Paul Perez's probable cause determination in his Affidavit of Probable Cause submitted to a judge to obtain an arrest warrant. We grant Detective Perez's motion for summary judgment in the accompanying Order.
Arthur Barnes ("Barnes") claims two men robbed him on June 14, 2013 ("the incident"). (ECF Doc. No. 26-1, Def.'s Statement of Undisputed Facts ("SOF"), ¶ 1.) On June 16, 2013, Defendant Detective Paul Perez ("Detective Perez") interviewed Barnes regarding the incident. (Id.) Barnes told Detective Perez two black males whom he identified as Plaintiff Rhaheem Anderson ("Anderson") and Jerome Lawrence ("Mook") confronted him.2 (Id. ¶ 2, 4.) Barnes identified Anderson in a photograph shown to him by Detective Perez during the interview. (Id. ¶ 5.)
According to Barnes, Mook accused Barnes of owing him about fifteen ($15) or twenty ($20) dollars. (ECF Doc. No. 26-2, App., 1.) Anderson began yelling at Barnes to "give it up give it give it up." (Id.) Mook began to hit Barnes. Barnes ran into a "Chinese store" while Anderson and Mook remained outside. (Def.'s SOF, ¶ 3.) Mook came into the store and hit Barnes again. (App., 1.)
Based on this information, Detective Perez prepared an Affidavit of Probable Cause (the "Affidavit") on June 21, 2013. (Def.'s SOF, ¶ 6.) Detective Perez requested "an arrest warrant be issued for [Anderson] for Robbery and Conspiracy." (App., 4.) A judge issued an arrest warrant for Anderson on June 21, 2013. (Def.'s SOF, ¶ 7.) Officers arrested Anderson pursuant to the arrest warrant on February 25, 2014. (Id. ¶ 8.)
The state court originally scheduled Anderson's preliminary hearing for March 12, 2014 and then rescheduled it three subsequent times: April 22, May 27, and June 18, 2014. (App., 88.) The Commonwealth then dropped the charges against Anderson only to refile them soon thereafter. (Pl.'s SOF, ¶ 24.) On July 30, 2014, a City of Philadelphia municipal court judge dismissed the charges against Anderson for lack of evidence following the preliminary hearing. (Id.)
Anderson alleges civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution, as well as corresponding state law claims against Detective Perez.3 Anderson's Amended Complaint also alleges Detective Perez violated Article I Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, invaded his privacy by casting him in a false light and intentionally inflicted emotional distress ("IIED") upon him.
Detective Perez now moves for summary judgment arguing: Anderson's Fourth Amendment claim must be dismissed because the Affidavit based on Barnes' interview provided probable cause for Anderson's arrest. Detective Perez claims Anderson cannot sustain a claim of malicious prosecution as: 1) officers instituted the criminal proceedings with probable cause; and 2) Anderson cannot adduce sufficient facts to show Detective Perez acted with malice. Detective Perez argues Anderson's claim under Article I Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution must be dismissed because no private right of action exists under the Pennsylvania Constitution. Detective Perez also argues Anderson's invasion of privacy claim must fail as Anderson cannot show Detective Perez'conduct constituted willful misconduct. Finally, Detective Perez argues for dismissal of Anderson's IIED claim as Anderson has produced no evidence of injury. (ECFDoc. No. 26, at 5-14.)
In response, Anderson claims insufficient facts and circumstances existed for any reasonable person to conclude probable cause existed to arrest him. In support of his malicious prosecution claim, Anderson argues Detective Perez knowingly issued a false Affidavit. This falsity, Anderson argues, cast him in a false light and caused him emotional distress, which is the basis for his IIED claim. Anderson fails to respond to Detective Perez's arguments regarding the claim under the Pennsylvania Constitution, as well as the effect of the Pennsylvania Subdivision Tort Claims Act ("PSTCA") on Anderson's false light claim.
We enter summary judgment in favor of Detective Perez on all claims in the Amended Complaint.4
" 'False arrest and false imprisonment are essentially the same claim . . . .' "5 Reynolds v. Municipality of Norristown, No. 15-0016, 2015 WL 4450979, *6 n.5 (E.D. Pa. July 17, 2015) (quoting Olender v. Twp. of Bensalem, 32 F. Supp. 2d 775, 791 (E.D. Pa. 1999)). The FourthAmendment provides:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants, shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
U.S. Const. amend. IV. The Fourth Amendment thus prohibits officers from arresting a citizen without probable cause. Orsatti v. New Jersey State Police, 71 F.3d 480, 482 (3d Cir. 1995). "Probable cause exists when the information within the arresting officer's knowledge at the time of the arrest is sufficient to warrant a reasonable law enforcement officer to believe that an offense has been or is being committed by the person to be arrested." Paff v. Kaltenbach, 204 F.3d 425, 436 (3d Cir. 2005).
The probable cause standard "requires more than mere suspicion; however it does not require that the officer have evidence sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." Orsatti, 71 F.3d at 482-83. The facts must support a reasonable belief "a fair probability" exists the person committed the crime at issue. Wilson v. Russo, 212 F.3d 781, 789 (3d Cir. 2000). "Probable cause does not require the same type of specific evidence of each element of the offense as would be needed to support a conviction." Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 149 (1972) (citation omitted).
It is irrelevant to the probable cause determination the exact crime charged by the police or whether the suspect is later acquitted of the charges altogether. White v. Brown, No. 08-606, 2010 WL 1718205, *4 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 28, 2010). We apply a "totality-of-the-circumstances approach" in analyzing probable cause. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 230 (1983). Moreover, "in analyzing false arrest claims, a court to insulate a defendant from liability need find only that '[p]robable cause . . . exist[ed] as to any offense that could be charged under the circumstances.'"Johnson v. Knorr, 477 F.3d 75, 85 (3d Cir. 2007) (quoting Barna v. City of Perth Amboy, 42 F.3d 809, 819 (3d Cir. 1994)).
The existence of probable cause is generally one for the jury but "a district court may conclude that probable cause exists as a matter of law if the evidence, viewed most favorably to Plaintiff, reasonably would not support a contrary factual finding." Merkle v. Upper Dublin School Dist., 211 F.3d 782, 788-89 (3d Cir. 2000).
Detective Perez interviewed Barnes two days after the alleged robbery took place. At the interview, Barnes stated he was robbed by two black males. He identified and named the two black males: Anderson and Mook. Barnes stated Anderson told him to "give it up give it give it up" while Mook asked Barnes for money owed to him. Further, he identified Anderson by a photograph shown to him by Detective Perez. (App., 1-2.) This specificity is sufficient to establish probable cause. See Lincoln v. Hanshaw, No. 08-4207, 2009 WL 1259099, *5 (E.D. Pa. May 6, 2009), aff'd 375 F. App'x 185 (3d Cir. 2010); Giordano v. Murano-Nix, No. 12-7034, 2014 WL 62459, *8 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 8, 2014) () (citation omitted).
As the Affidavit is facially valid, Anderson must endeavor to show some other infirmity in the Affidavit. "[A]n arrest warrant issued by a magistrate judge does not, in itself, shelter an official from liability for false arrest." Wilson, 212 F.3d at 786. When challenging the validity of an arrest warrant, the plaintiff "must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, (1) that the affiant knowingly and deliberately, or with a reckless disregard for the truth, made false statements or omissions that create a falsehood in applying for a warrant; and (2) that such statements or omissions are material, or necessary to the finding of probable cause." Sherwood v. Mulvihill, 113 F.3d 396, 399 (citing Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 171-72(1978)).
Anderson cannot satisfy this standard. Anderson cites...
To continue reading
Request your trial