Federal false arrest verdict from family dispute is thrown out on appeal, but state claim is reinstated

This false arrest case went to trial and plaintiff on his federal and state law claims. Yay! But a funny thing happened on the way to the judgment. The trial court threw out the verdict on defendant's post-trial motion, holding the police officer was entitled to qualified immunity. Plaintiff takes up an appeal. He gets the state verdict back, but the federal claim is gone.

The case is Triolo v. Lee, issued on January 21. This case began with a horrible family argument that included violence, vulgarities, and an altercation at the father's wake. The dispute had plaintiff on one side, and his brother and mother on the other side. The police report said plaintiff punched, strangled and choked his brother, but for some reason the report also said that "no offense was committed." Plaintiff got arrested criminal obstruction of breathing or blood circulation (for choking his brother) and assault (for grabbing his mother). At trial, the jury found there was no probable cause to arrest plaintiff, who was awarded $150,000 for pain and suffering and $35,000 in punitive damages. The trial court knocked out the verdict, holding the officer had qualified immunity, which lets police officers off the hook if they have arguable probable cause.

The Court of Appeals threads the needle on the federal claim, finding the jury did in fact have a basis to find the officer lacked probable cause to arrest plaintiff. The rationale is that the officer arrested plaintiff despite having access to information at the time that demonstrated plaintiff had not violated the law. While the brother and mother signed statements claiming plaintiff had assaulted them, "the jury disregarded evidence that undermined their veracity," as they had no visible injuries, the domestic incident report said "no offense was committed," and the officer showed no interest in evidence presented by plaintiff's wife that plaintiff was in fact the victim, not the aggressor. 

Courts usually find probable cause existed when the police rely on the victim's statement that someone did them wrong. Probable cause exists even if the victim was mistaken. The officer does not have to conduct a full-blown investigation into the charges against the criminal defendant before making an arrest. That's why so many false arrest claims are dismissed. But there is a narrow line of cases that say the officer cannot ignore evidence that would completely exonerate the criminal defendant. You don't see those cases too often. This is one of those cases. 

But to win the case, plaintiff still has to get around qualified immunity, a judge-made rule that says the officer cannot lose the case if he acted reasonably under the circumstances. That immunity applies here, the Court of Appeals (Lohier, Pooler and Chin) says, because he had "arguable probable cause" to make the arrest. As it is not clear that no reasonable officer could have concluded that probable cause existed, the officer gets qualified immunity, and the federal claim is gone. Here is the reasoning on this issue:

The alleged victims signed a domestic incident report, alleging that Triolo choked, punched, grabbed, and injured them.  Their accounts were consistent with each other's.  And even though the lack of visible injuries arguably undermined their veracity, it is nonetheless possible that no visible injuries resulted from the alleged assault.  Finally, although the report stated that no arrest was made on May 17, 2015, because "no offense [was] committed," a reasonable officer receiving this report could have concluded this was a mistake because the form also plainly indicated that Triolo had engaged in punching, pushing, strangulation, and choking.

The state law claim, however, is reinstated. But that's a blog post for another day.