Edelman v. Schultz, 683 F. App'x 60

Plaintiff Steven Edelman was observed performing roof work on his property in 1998 without a building permit; Windham Building Official Donald Schultz issued a Stop Work Order.
Deputy Sheriff David Page delivered the Stop Work placard; Page reported a confrontational encounter in which Edelman allegedly tore up the placard and damaged Page’s car.
Schultz submitted an affidavit supporting an arrest warrant that, according to Edelman, contained a false assertion that Edelman continued working after the Stop Work Order.
Edelman was arrested, prosecuted, and (after trial and appeal) his conviction on the sole remaining count was vacated; he sued Schultz under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming false arrest, malicious prosecution, and equal protection violations (selective enforcement/class-of-one).
The District Court granted partial judgment on the pleadings to Schultz (probable cause defeated the false arrest claim) and later granted summary judgment on Edelman’s equal protection claim; the Second Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
False arrest / probable cause	Schultz’s affidavit included a deliberate falsehood (continuing work after Stop Work Order); this vitiates probable cause.	Even excluding any alleged falsity, Edelman was working without a permit, which independently established probable cause.	Affirmed: probable cause existed based on permitless roof work, so § 1983 false arrest claim fails.
Malicious prosecution	Prosecution pursued without probable cause and with malice.	Probable cause existed; malicious prosecution elements not met.	Affirmed: cannot prevail where probable cause existed.
Due process (procedural)	Arrest, prosecution, and post-conviction process deprived Edelman of liberty unlawfully.	Edelman received judicial process (trial and appeal); alleged procedures were adequate; related due process suits against other actors failed.	Rejected: process due was afforded; related due process claims previously dismissed.
Equal protection — selective enforcement / class-of-one	Prosecution was selective or targeted without rational basis.	Schultz had nondiscriminatory reasons: prior repeat conduct, aggressive history, and the 1998 incident; no adequate comparators.	Affirmed: undisputed facts and lack of comparators defeat equal protection claim.

Fulton v. Robinson, 289 F.3d 188 (2d Cir. 2002) (no § 1983 false-arrest claim if probable cause existed)
Roberts v. Babkiewicz, 582 F.3d 418 (2d Cir. 2009) (elements required for § 1983 malicious prosecution claim and interplay with Fourth Amendment)