Diaz-Nieves v. United States
858 F.3d 678
| 1st Cir. | 2017Background
- FBI "Operation Guard Shack" involved a reverse-sting; an undercover corrections officer used the name "Joel Díaz-Nieves" in a controlled buy. The FBI obtained Joel's personnel file (with photo) and an arrest warrant was issued for Joel.
- FBI agents arrested Joel at his parents' home pursuant to that warrant; family members were ordered at gunpoint to the wall and feared for their safety; Joel was detained three days and then released after the government learned the impersonator was another officer, José Nieves-Vélez.
- Plaintiffs (Joel and family) sued under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) alleging negligent investigation, false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution (Joel), and derivative and independent Article 1802 claims (family). The negligent-investigation claim was dismissed earlier and not appealed.
- After discovery the district court granted partial summary judgment for the United States dismissing Joel’s false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution claims, and later entered judgment on the pleadings dismissing the relatives’ derivative and independent claims. Plaintiffs appealed.
- The First Circuit affirms: it applies Puerto Rico tort law (FTCA "law of the place") and holds the officers were protected by the conditional privilege for arrests made pursuant to a valid warrant; Joel’s malicious prosecution claim failed for lack of malice/absence of knowingly false grand-jury presentation; relatives’ derivative and excessive-force claims were properly dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| False arrest / false imprisonment | Arresting officers negligently failed to compare FBI video to Joel's personnel photo; Valle requires only negligence to recover. | Arrest was pursuant to a valid warrant and conditionally privileged under Puerto Rico/common-law framework (Rodríguez). | Arrest was conditionally privileged; Rodríguez remains controlling; summary judgment for government affirmed. |
| Malicious prosecution | Agents negligently supplied evidence to the grand jury (failed image comparison), causing an improper indictment. | Grand-jury indictment establishes probable cause; no evidence agents knowingly presented false testimony or acted with malice. | Dismissed: plaintiff failed to show lack of probable cause or malice; mere negligence insufficient. |
| Relatives’ derivative Article 1802 claims | Derivative claims depend on reinstatement of Joel's FTCA claims; if Joel's claims were wrongly dismissed, relatives should recover. | Derivative claims fail because Joel's underlying claims were correctly dismissed. | Dismissed: derivative claims rise or fall with Joel’s claims; those claims were properly dismissed. |
| Relatives’ independent excessive-force claim | Family suffered emotional/mental harm and fear from manner of arrest execution (guns, laser sights, naked exposure of father). | Pleadings lack authority and specific allegations showing tortious or unreasonable force under Puerto Rico law; officers reasonably believed subject was armed. | Dismissed: allegations do not plausibly state a tortious excessive-force claim under Article 1802. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rodríguez v. United States, 54 F.3d 41 (1st Cir.) (conditional privilege for arrests made pursuant to valid warrants under Puerto Rico/common law framework)
- Solís-Alarcón v. United States, 662 F.3d 577 (1st Cir.) (affirming Rodríguez approach; reasonable mistakes by officers protected)
- Barros-Villahermosa v. United States, 642 F.3d 56 (1st Cir.) (malicious-prosecution elements under Puerto Rico law)
- González Rucci v. U.S. I.N.S., 405 F.3d 45 (1st Cir.) (grand-jury indictment establishes probable cause absent knowingly false presentation)
- Unus v. Kane, 565 F.3d 103 (4th Cir.) (recognizing protection for reasonable law-enforcement mistakes)
- Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (1990) (officers may take reasonable steps during in-home arrests to ensure safety)