Dettelis v. Sharbaugh, 919 F.3d 161

Dettelis was sentenced to three years’ probation after a 2011 DWI conviction; a probation condition required him to notify his probation officer upon arrest or questioning by police.
In Nov. 2012, Dettelis had a loud encounter at a town courthouse; a state police officer went to his home and told him to have his lawyer collect records rather than return to court.
A Violation of Probation (VOP) report, dated Nov. 2012, charged Dettelis with failing to report that police contact; the county court found a probation violation and sentenced him to 90 days’ jail.
The Fourth Department reversed the VOP conviction, holding the interaction did not constitute “questioning” that would trigger the reporting requirement.
Dettelis sued the county probation director, supervisor, and officer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for malicious prosecution, alleging the VOP report was fabricated and motivated by malice.
The district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6), concluding Dettelis failed to overcome a presumption of probable cause; the Second Circuit affirmed on qualified immunity grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Dettelis pleaded lack of probable cause for the VOP	Dettelis argued the VOP was fabricated and the conviction (later reversed) should not create a presumption of probable cause	Appellees argued the VOP determination supported a presumption or at least probable cause to bring charges	Court did not decide scope of presumption; found qualified immunity dispositive
Whether defendants acted with actual malice	Dettelis alleged defendants acted to imprison him and fabricated the report	Appellees maintained their actions were objectively reasonable and not motivated by malice	Court held allegations did not overcome qualified immunity because arguable probable cause existed
Whether probation officers are immune from suit for VOP-related acts	N/A (Plaintiff challenges conduct as actionable)	Appellees invoked immunity (absolute or qualified) depending on function performed	Court found at minimum qualified immunity applied for filing/recommending VOP charges
Whether reversal of VOP on appeal negates reasonable belief in law at time of charge	Dettelis argued reversal shows no probable cause and weakens any immunity defense	Appellees argued state-law interpretation was not clearly established at time, so reasonable officers could disagree	Court held that before appellate ruling, defendants reasonably believed the conduct was reportable; qualified immunity applies

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Rule 8 requires more than conclusory allegations)
Manganiello v. City of New York, 612 F.3d 149 (§ 1983 malicious-prosecution elements)
Murphy v. Lynn, 118 F.3d 938 (elements of malicious prosecution under NY law)
Savino v. City of New York, 331 F.3d 63 (probable cause is complete defense to malicious prosecution)
Dorman v. Higgins, 821 F.2d 133 (absolute immunity for presentence report preparation)
Peay v. Ajello, 470 F.3d 65 (absolute immunity for certain probation/parole functions)
Scotto v. Almenas, 143 F.3d 105 (distinguishing investigative acts—qualified immunity—from prosecutorial/judicial acts)
Jenkins v. City of New York, 478 F.3d 76 (arguable probable cause standard for qualified immunity)
Betts v. Shearman, 751 F.3d 78 (qualified immunity if action was objectively reasonable)
Figueroa v. Mazza, 825 F.3d 89 (qualified-immunity inquiry: whether reasonable officers could think action lawful)
Licci ex rel. Licci v. Lebanese Canadian Bank, SAL, 739 F.3d 45 (federal courts bound by state-court interpretations of state law)