McInnis v. Maine
638 F.3d 18
1st Cir.2011Background
- McInnis was convicted of federal and state offenses and began a state probation term after his sentence; his warrantless arrest and search on January 5, 2007 were based on believed probation violation.
- The probation period had actually expired earlier due to an unrecorded sentence reduction in the probation department's records.
- Probation officer Randall informed officers including Deetjen and Hatch of a suspected probation violation and possible marijuana possession; an informant connected McInnis to marijuana at his residence.
- Officers arrested McInnis and conducted a warrantless search without probation- based warrants; no marijuana beyond seeds/paraphernalia was found.
- After McInnis was jailed, his lawyer later communicated the sentence reduction, and Randall learned the true status and withdrew the arrest hold.
- McInnis asserted false arrest and illegal search claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state tort theories, challenging qualified immunity and related procedural issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers are entitled to qualified immunity on arrest for probation violation. | McInnis argues no probable cause; immunity not satisfied. | Defendants contend probable cause existed or was at least arguable. | Qualified immunity available; probable cause at least arguable supported arrest. |
| Whether there was reasonable suspicion to search for contraband at McInnis's residence. | McInnis alleges lack of reasonable suspicion to justify a search. | Informant reliability and prior revocation of supervised release supplied reasonable suspicion. | Reasonable suspicion supported; search justified under Knights standard. |
| Whether the district court correctly addressed the Maine Tort Claims Act notice/scope of employment issues. | McInnis contends notice and scope issues create triable fact disputes against Hatch. | Hatch acted within the scope of employment; notice requirements satisfied or not applicable. | Hatch acted within scope; MTCA notice requirement not violated; judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cox v. Hainey, 391 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2004) (de novo review; qualified immunity standard)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (Supreme Court 2009) (clearly established law in qualified immunity)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (U.S. 1967) (probable cause and reasonable search principles)
- United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112 (2001) (probationary search and reasonable suspicion standards)
- Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868 (U.S. 1987) (probation searches doctrine)
- Cardona, 903 F.2d 60 (1st Cir. 1990) (probation-related authority)
- Monell v. Department of Social Services of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (supervisory/municipal liability framework)
- Prokey v. Watkins, 942 F.2d 67 (1st Cir. 1991) (standard for qualified immunity and probable cause reference)
- Spencer v. VIP, Inc., 910 A.2d 366 (Me. 2006) (scope of employment analysis under Maine Law)