Do I have grounds for a lawsuit? Pittsburgh, PA

[PAknowledge]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? PA

Hello everyone. Bear with me, as I'm not sure if I am in the right forum for my question. With that said, I want to thank everyone in advance for the advice I hope to get.

In February of 2012, I was arrested for 5 charges in Pittsburgh, PA.

-F1, Riot, intent to commit felony
-F1, Aggravated assault
-F1, Robbery
-F1, Conspiracy
-M3, Disorderly conduct

All of these charges were bogus. In August of 2012, all of the charges were dropped.

I was arrested at roughly 3am, taken from my house, without being read my rights or an explanation. I went to jail, and found out the next morning that I was charged with 5 serious crimes.

I posted a 10K bond, and spent roughly another 10K in lawyer fees. More impacting, I went through 6 months of extreme stress. I struggled tremendously while goin through this.

With all of that said - do I have any options to sue the Police for not doing their due diligence in an investigion before wrongfully arresting me?

Thank you.

-Brian

 

[latigo]

=PAknowledge;3189174]What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? PA

Hello everyone. Bear with me, as I'm not sure if I am in the right forum for my question. With that said, I want to thank everyone in advance for the advice I hope to get.

In February of 2012, I was arrested for 5 charges in Pittsburgh, PA.

-F1, Riot, intent to commit felony
-F1, Aggravated assault
-F1, Robbery
-F1, Conspiracy
-M3, Disorderly conduct

All of these charges were bogus. In August of 2012, all of the charges were dropped.

I was arrested at roughly 3am, taken from my house, without being read my rights or an explanation. I went to jail, and found out the next morning that I was charged with 5 serious crimes.

I posted a 10K bond, and spent roughly another 10K in lawyer fees. More impacting, I went through 6 months of extreme stress. I struggled tremendously while goin through this.

With all of that said - do I have any options to sue the Police for not doing their due diligence in an investigion before wrongfully arresting me?

Isn't a bit naive to expect to expect a meaningful response to your question with no more information other than that you were arrested upon felony charges that were subsequently dropped?

If the arrest was “unlawful” then you have the makings of a civil suit against the arresting officer(s) under Title 42 USC l983 for false arrest which is a violation of the 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable seizure of a person.

The question is whether or not the arrest was constitutionally lawful. Meaning did the arresting officer have probable cause.

Probable cause exists where the officer had “reasonable trustworthy information” that the arrestee had committed a crime. It is not a question of diligently investigating the incident, per se. It is the nature and reliability of the information gathered.

Also, there is the procedure issue of allocating the burden of proof with respect to the presence or absence of probable cause. Some jurisdictions place the burden on the claimant to prove its absence and others hold that it is the officer burden to prove that it existed. And who carries the burden of proof can be very decisive.

Here you tell us that you paid several Gs to your defense attorney, who would seem to have the information to determine the merits of such a lawsuit. I suggest that you revisit you lawyer.

You are will not get it sorted out in cyberspace.

 

[PAknowledge]

Fair enough - thanks for the response.

 

[tranquility]

The only thing I disagree with Latigo with here is that, because of qualified immunity, the actual guideline is * arguable * probable cause and not just probable cause.

 

[latigo]

The only thing I disagree with Latigo with here is that, because of qualified immunity, the actual guideline is * arguable * probable cause and not just probable cause. (?)

I’m not sure what that statement means - “probable cause and not just probable cause”.

But if you are saying that the guidelines differ in establishing probable cause and the defense of qualified immunity I disagree Because I think that you will find that the absence of probable cause for a warrantless arrest sublimes the issue of qualified immunity.

For case examples see: Trejo vs. Perez, 693 F2nd 482; Escalara vs. Lunn, 361 F3rd 737. Friedly vs. Horrighs, 291 F3rd 873, and Saucier vs. Katz, 533 US l99 to the effect that in a false arrest claim probable cause for the arrest and qualified immunity from prosecution involve the same question:

“Did the officer have an objective belief in the lawfulness of the arrest.”

That the 4th Amendment rule of warrantless arrests is clearly established law and such an arrest without probable cause is “a violation of a clearly established constitutional right”.

And “an allegation of unconstitutional false arrest is generally sufficient to overcome qualified immunity to prosecution.”

Plus it is notable that the modifier is "qualified" and not "absolute".

And it would seem self-defeating of Congress to enact Section l983 in the face of state laws that granted unqualified immunity to government officials acting under color of statute, etc.

In sum, if the arresting officer making the warrantless arrest is shown to have the same affirmative belief that would lead a prudent person to believe that the arrestee had committed a crime, then he is protected from prosecution. Otherwise it is a violation of the arrestee’s constitutional right.

 

[tranquility]

I’m not sure what that statement means - “probable cause and not just probable cause”.

But if you are saying that the guidelines differ in establishing probable cause and the defense of qualified immunity I disagree Because I think that you will find that the absence of probable cause for a warrantless arrest sublimes the issue of qualified immunity.

For case examples see: Trejo vs. Perez, 693 F2nd 482; Escalara vs. Lunn, 361 F3rd 737. Friedly vs. Horrighs, 291 F3rd 873, and Saucier vs. Katz, 533 US l99 to the effect that in a false arrest claim probable cause for the arrest and qualified immunity from prosecution involve the same question:

“Did the officer have an objective belief in the lawfulness of the arrest.”

That the 4th Amendment rule of warrantless arrests is clearly established law and such an arrest without probable cause is “a violation of a clearly established constitutional right”.

And “an allegation of unconstitutional false arrest is generally sufficient to overcome qualified immunity to prosecution.”

Plus it is notable that the modifier is "qualified" and not "absolute".

And it would seem self-defeating of Congress to enact Section l983 in the face of state laws that granted unqualified immunity to government officials acting under color of statute, etc.

In sum, if the arresting officer making the warrantless arrest is shown to have the same affirmative belief that would lead a prudent person to believe that the arrestee had committed a crime, then he is protected from prosecution. Otherwise it is a violation of the arrestee’s constitutional right.

http://fourthamendment.com/blog/index.php?blog=1&title=ca11_lack_of_even_arguable_probable_caus&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

CA11: Lack of even arguable probable cause denies qualified immunity in § 1983 case

“Nevertheless, in cases involving arrests or warrantless searches or seizures, law enforcement officers are entitled to qualified immunity if they had even arguable probable cause. See Swint v. City of Wadley, Ala., 51 F.3d 988, 996 (11th Cir. 1995); Eubanks v. Gerwen, 40 F.3d 1157, 1160 (11th Cir. 1994). Arguable probable cause exists if ‘reasonable officers in the same circumstances and possessing the same knowledge as the Defendants could have believed that probable cause existed.’ Swint, 51 F.3d at 996 (quotation marks omitted).” “[W]e conclude that, given the facts as we must view them for purposes of summary judgment, the officers lacked even arguable probable cause or exigent circumstances justifying their entry into Feliciano's apartment without a warrant or her consent.” Feliciano v. City of Miami Beach, 707 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2013).

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1723890

'Arguable Probable Cause': An Unwarranted Approach to Qualified Immunity

Tal J. Lif****z

University of Miami - University of Miami Law Review

December 11, 2010


Abstract:
In § 1983 civil rights actions, government officials may invoke qualified immunity as a shield from civil liability. The standard for determining whether such § 1983 claims may proceed was set forth by the Supreme Court of the United States in Harlow v. Fitzgerald: has the plaintiff suffered a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. In the context of Fourth Amendment violations, a slight minority of federal circuit courts of appeals follow the traditional probable cause analysis to determine clearly established rights. Yet the 11th Circuit, along with a number of companion circuits, employs a differing standard - "arguable probable cause." Essentially, this standard posits that even if an officer arrests an individual without probable cause, the officer is nevertheless immune if he can show either that it was objectively reasonable for the officer to believe he had probable cause, or, officers of reasonable competence could disagree whether probable cause existed. In other words, defendant officers are granted immunity if they reasonably believe that a reasonably prudent officer would have acted even though a reasonably prudent officer would not have acted.

This article argues that the "arguable probable cause" standard employed by these circuits is an unnecessary and confusing evolution of the qualified immunity analysis as it imposes an additional "reasonableness" inquiry onto defendant law enforcement officers' conduct. Qualified immunity should not shield defendant officers from liability merely because "officers of reasonable competence could disagree on the legality of the action at issue in its particular factual context" - reasonably competent officers should never disagree on the legality of an action where constitutional violations are clearly established. Thus, the Supreme Court should reinforce its position that defendant officers must be held to an objective standard of reasonableness, thereby restricting this analysis to the original, traditional standard of probable cause.

In the circuit of our OP (the 3rd) http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/062785p.pdf (Blaylock v. City of Philadelphia et al.),

In support of their
argument, they rely principally on Gilles v. Davis, 427 F.3d 197
(3d Cir. 2005), in which we made an independent
determination—based in part on a videotape that was in the
record—that the defendant police officer had at least arguable
probable cause to arrest the plaintiff for disorderly conduct and
was therefore entitled to qualified immunity. Id.at 206-07.