Raheem Anderson v. Paul Perez
677 F. App'x 49
3rd Cir.2017Background
- In June 2013 Philadelphia Detective Paul Perez swore an affidavit supporting a warrant charging Raheem Anderson with robbery, criminal conspiracy, simple assault, and theft based largely on victim Arthur Barnes’s identification and Barnes’s corroborating injuries.
- A warrant issued the same day; Anderson was arrested on the warrant on February 25, 2014 (about eight months later) and was held pretrial after failing to post $50,000 bail.
- Between the warrant and Anderson’s arrest, co-defendant Jerome Lawrence was arrested and later pled guilty to simple assault; some charges against Lawrence were dismissed before Anderson’s arrest.
- Anderson was jailed nearly four months until the case was dismissed for lack of prosecution on June 8, 2014; charges were later re-filed and then dismissed at a preliminary hearing for lack of evidence because Barnes was less certain at hearing.
- Anderson sued Perez under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest, malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, false light invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress; the District Court granted summary judgment for Perez, and Anderson appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the warrant affidavit established probable cause for arrest | Anderson contends the warrant lacked probable cause because later developments (e.g., dismissals against Lawrence, equivocal hearing testimony) undermine the affidavit | Perez argues the affidavit contained Barnes’s identification and corroborating injuries, which sufficed for probable cause when sworn | Court: Probable cause existed at time of affidavit; no genuine dispute of material fact |
| Whether Perez acted with reckless disregard or willful falsity in the affidavit (supporting §1983 claims) | Anderson alleges affidavit was false or omitted material facts and that Perez recklessly disregarded the truth | Perez asserts he believed the statements were true when sworn and points to no evidence of reckless or willful falsity | Court: No evidence Perez recklessly or willfully misled the magistrate; claim fails |
| Whether false light invasion of privacy requires reckless disregard and is shown here | Anderson argues the affidavit/publication put him in false light given later contradictory events | Perez contends false light requires knowledge or reckless disregard for falsity; he lacked such state of mind at time of affidavit | Court: False light fails for lack of evidence of reckless disregard |
| Whether IIED claim is supported by conduct alleged in affidavit/application | Anderson claims emotional distress from wrongful prosecution/arrest due to Perez’s conduct | Perez maintains no outrageous, intentional, or wanton conduct shown; affidavit supported by victim ID and injuries | Court: IIED fails—no evidence of the kind of extreme, outrageous conduct required under Pennsylvania law |
Key Cases Cited
- Dowling v. City of Phila., 855 F.2d 136 (3d Cir. 1988) (probable-cause requirement for false arrest claims)
- Orsatti v. N.J. State Police, 71 F.3d 480 (3d Cir. 1995) (defining probable cause to arrest)
- Goodwin v. Conway, 836 F.3d 321 (3d Cir. 2016) (reckless-disregard standard for vindicating false statements in affidavits)
- Wilson v. Russo, 212 F.3d 781 (3d Cir. 2000) (omissions and what a magistrate would wish to know in warrant affidavits)
- Graboff v. Colleran Firm, 744 F.3d 128 (3d Cir. 2014) (elements of false light invasion of privacy under Pennsylvania law)
- Hoy v. Angelone, 720 A.2d 745 (Pa. 1998) (extreme-outrageousness standard for IIED in Pennsylvania)