False arrest claim fails on appeal

This case reminds us how difficult it is to bring a false arrest claim under the Constitution. Police officers can involve qualified immunity and avoid the lawsuit altogether. They can also win the case by showing there was probable cause to make the arrest. These defenses present significant roadblocks for plaintiffs. 

The case is Richardson v. McMahon, a summary order issued on April 27. This is a domestic violence case where the female victim called the police. The police officers received statements from two women suggesting that plaintiff had assaulted Candice Binns. One of the eyewitness statements came from Binns. One officer observed that "Binns appeared disheveled" and that her face, neck and shirt "were a little wet." The floor of Binns' apartment was also wet and Binns was cleaning up the apartment when the police arrived. Binns may have told the police upon arrival that plaintiff "began to yell at her" and pushed her around the kitchen. She also may have told the police that plaintiff placed his hands around her throat and began to choke her. She then said plaintiff poured water on her face. Winns' daughter reported the same information to the police.

Plaintiff denies any wrongdoing. Does that denial give rise to a false arrest case? Not in this case, says the Court of Appeals (Calabresi, Park and Lee), because it is settled law that the arresting officer can rely on the accusatory statements from the alleged victim. That kind of eyewitness account gives rise to probable cause unless the police have good reason to believe the eyewitness account was knowingly false or there was something unreliable about the eyewitness. Plaintiff loses the case on summary judgment because "it was objectively reasonable for the police to rely" on these eyewitness statements in arresting plaintiff. 

Plaintiff also raises a malicious prosecution claim, which would cover any harm that accrued following plaintiff's arrest. If the police had reason know post-arrest that probable cause was lacking, plaintiff can pursue such a claim. He cannot do so because, post-arrest, the police "did not uncover any further exculpatory evidence beyond" plaintiff's account that he had done nothing wrong.