Barros-Villahermosa v. United States, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 7750

Barros-Villahermosa, a US CBP officer, removed and shredded a permit decal from a junked police vehicle near the San Juan airport without reporting.
PRPD arrested Barros for misappropriation; DHS notified; a DHS OIG agent observed the PRPD investigation.
Sánchez attended interviews and hearings as an observer; he did not participate in questioning; at rehearing he whispered to the prosecutor after the witness testified.
Two Puerto Rico hearings in 2004 ended with findings of no probable cause and dismissal of the charges.
In 2005, DHS issued a Report of Investigation; Barros sued in 2006 under FTCA claiming malicious prosecution; district court granted summary judgment for the United States.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Sánchez initiate the prosecution?	Barros argues Sánchez actively instigated the prosecution.	Defendants contend the PRPD arrested and charged Barros independently of Sánchez.	No initiation by Sánchez; not proven.
Was there malice or bad faith sufficient for liability?	Barros asserts malice/bad faith via involvement and ROI timing.	Government argues no showing of bad faith or malice by Sánchez.	No evidence of malice.
Was there lack of probable cause shown for malicious prosecution?	Barros contends probable cause was absent due to government involvement.	Defendants maintain probable cause was not shown to be lacking; focus is on malice and initiation.	Court anchors on lack of proof of initiation and malice; insufficient to prove all elements.
Should ROI timing affect liability under Puerto Rico law?	ROI could reflect improper action suppressing evidence.	ROI issued after charges; not causative of prosecution.	ROI timing does not create triable issue of initiation or malice.

Rivera-Marcano v. Normeat Royal Dane Quality A/S, 998 F.2d 34 (1st Cir. 1993) (requires concrete admissible evidence to show a genuine issue of fact)
Texaco Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Medina, 834 F.2d 242 (1st Cir. 1987) (adverse presumption not reached; evidentiary issues discussed)