Anthony Maniscalco v. Jay Simon
712 F.3d 1139
7th Cir.2013Background
- Maniscalco hosted a birthday party for a state senator at Paisans in Gurnee, Illinois, then went to a McDonald’s drive-through late at night.
- Before Maniscalco’s arrival, a police officer gave Fidel Castro a note with four numbers; Castro testified the note contained 2626 and related to Maniscalco’s license plate C112626.
- Guzman described Maniscalco as verbally abusive and alleged he grabbed Guzman’s wrist at the pay window; Maniscalco drove off after a confrontation.
- Gurnee officers were dispatched; Guzman and Escobar described the incident, and Guzman reported the license plate and description of the suspect.
- Maniscalco was stopped by police, arrested for disorderly conduct and later charged with driving under the influence; sobriety tests were administered at the station after the arrest.
- Criminal charges were resolved with acquittals for the battery and DUI, and Maniscalco then sued under § 1983 alleging conspiracy with McDonald’s employees to create probable cause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause for disorderly conduct arrest | Maniscalco argues officers lacked probable cause to arrest for disorderly conduct. | Hauptman and Simon contend statements from Guzman/Escobar and conduct established probable cause. | Probable cause established for disorderly conduct. |
| Probable cause for DUI arrest at the time of arrest | Maniscalco contends there was probable cause for DUI based on signs of intoxication. | Officers did not have DUI probable cause at the time of arrest; it developed later at the station. | No probable cause for DUI at the time of arrest; DUI shown only after station sobriety tests. |
| Respondeat superior liability of a private employer under § 1983 | Maniscalco argues McDonald’s can be vicariously liable for officers' actions. | Defendants rely on Iskander to bar vicarious liability for private employers. | Respondeat superior liability unavailable; Iskander controls. |
| Conspiracy to fabricate probable cause | Maniscalco contends officers and McDonald’s employees conspired to create probable cause. | Defendants argue the conspiracy theory is speculative and insufficient to defeat summary judgment. | Conspiracy claim rejected; insufficient evidence linking officers to a conspiracy. |
Key Cases Cited
- Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (U.S. 2004) (probable cause judged from facts known; officer's state of mind irrelevant)
- Reynolds v. Jamison, 488 F.3d 756 (7th Cir. 2007) (what counts as probable cause based on information available at arrest)
- Stokes v. Bd. of Educ. of the City of Chicago, 599 F.3d 617 (7th Cir. 2010) (summary judgment standards for disputes)
- Iskander v. Village of Forest Park, 690 F.2d 126 (7th Cir. 1982) (private employer not liable under § 1983 via respondeat superior)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (local governments not vicariously liable under § 1983; Monell framework)