Rasheed Waters v. Cheltenham Township Police Dep
700 F. App'x 149
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- In 2012 Waters was arrested on a Montgomery County warrant for burglary based primarily on a single eyewitness identification. He had an alibi supported by store surveillance video.
- Detective John Barr investigated; Waters told Barr about the alibi and the stores with footage, but alleges Barr ignored it.
- Waters was held in custody for about 16 months; his criminal case was dismissed at trial after Waters’s counsel produced surveillance footage that corroborated the alibi.
- Waters sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Pennsylvania law alleging malicious prosecution (after earlier false-arrest/imprisonment claims were dismissed or time-barred).
- The district court granted judgment on the pleadings for defendants, finding Waters failed to plead lack of probable cause because the arrest was based on an eyewitness-supported warrant and Waters did not allege Barr made false or recklessly misleading statements in obtaining the warrant.
- The Third Circuit affirmed, holding Waters’ alleged facts did not show the warrant application contained knowingly false statements or material omissions that vitiated probable cause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the criminal proceeding was initiated without probable cause | Waters: warrant rested on unreliable eyewitness and officer ignored/allegedly withheld exculpatory video and alibi | Defendants: warrant was supported by an eyewitness; no allegation Barr made false statements or recklessly omitted material facts when seeking the warrant | Held: No. A neutral magistrate issued the warrant based on eyewitness information; Waters did not plead that Barr made material false statements or omissions that caused the magistrate’s finding of probable cause |
| Whether post-arrest possession or receipt of exculpatory video defeats probable cause established earlier | Waters: Barr had or was given video and nonetheless detained Waters | Defendants: Barr did not know of the video at time of warrant; probable cause judged by information available when warrant sought | Held: Exculpatory evidence obtained after the warrant application does not negate probable cause for initiation; probable cause is assessed based on information available at application time |
| Whether failure to investigate every claim of innocence (e.g., obtain surveillance) undermines probable cause | Waters: Police could/should have obtained surveillance before arrest | Defendants: No constitutional duty to investigate all possible exculpatory leads when officers reasonably rely on eyewitness information | Held: No duty to exhaust all investigative steps; reasonable reliance on eyewitness satisfies probable cause absent allegations of deliberate/reckless falsehoods |
| Whether Waters may proceed on a distinct claim for prolonged post-arrest detention based on known exculpatory evidence | Waters (on appeal): lengthy detention despite exculpatory video gives rise to a due-process/false-imprisonment-type claim | Defendants: Claim not pleaded in the amended complaint | Held: Not considered — the prolonged-detention theory was not pled below and is not before the court |
Key Cases Cited
- Estate of Smith v. Marasco, 318 F.3d 497 (3d Cir. 2003) (elements of § 1983 malicious prosecution claim)
- Wilson v. Russo, 212 F.3d 781 (3d Cir. 2000) (officer liable if warrant application contains knowingly false or recklessly made false statements or omissions that are material to probable cause)
- Marasco (same as Estate of Smith citation) cited for temporal rule regarding information available at warrant application
- Sharrar v. Felsing, 128 F.3d 810 (3d Cir. 1997) (information from a putative victim or eyewitness can provide reasonable basis for probable cause)
- Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1979) (no constitutional duty to investigate every claim of innocence once officers have a reasonable basis for probable cause)
- Burke v. Town of Walpole, 405 F.3d 66 (1st Cir. 2005) (withholding known exculpatory evidence from warrant application can defeat probable cause)
- Kuehl v. Burtis, 173 F.3d 646 (8th Cir. 1999) (ignoring plainly exculpatory evidence may negate probable cause)
- Russo v. City of Bridgeport, 479 F.3d 196 (2d Cir. 2007) (standards for false imprisonment/unlawful prolonged detention claim)
- Sanders v. English, 950 F.2d 1152 (5th Cir. 1992) (officer’s failure to release after learning of misidentification can support illegal detention claim)