Reed Dempsey v. Bucknell University, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 15334

Background

On Sept. 5, 2010 Bucknell student Kelly Stefanowicz reported an assault by fellow student Reed Dempsey after an interaction that began as playful wrestling and escalated in Dempsey’s room and later in a hallway; photographs and medical notes documented injuries.
BUPS Officer Julie Holtzapple prepared affidavits of probable cause and criminal complaints charging Dempsey with simple assault, harassment, disorderly conduct, indecent assault, and false imprisonment; warrants issued and Dempsey was arraigned; charges later withdrawn by the district attorney.
Investigators gathered multiple witness statements with mixed accounts: several witnesses described playfulness before/after the encounter and aggressive behavior by Stefanowicz in the hallway; others corroborated aspects of Stefanowicz’s account; time alone in the room was estimated between ~1 and ~10 minutes.
Dempsey sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest, malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, and related claims, arguing Officer Holtzapple recklessly omitted exculpatory facts from the affidavit and that those omissions were material to probable cause.
The district court granted summary judgment to Bucknell defendants, finding that although some facts were recklessly omitted, the reconstructed affidavit still established probable cause; the Third Circuit affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Were relevant facts recklessly omitted from the affidavit?	Dempsey: officers omitted witness statements showing playfulness, that Stefanowicz was often the aggressor in the hallway, expressions of remorse, and that he and Kelly were alone only about a minute—facts a judge would want to know.	Bucknell: omitted details were not recklessly withheld or were immaterial; many omitted facts were consistent with the affidavit or unknown at the time.	Court: Several items (playfulness, hallway aggression, remorse, disputed time alone) were recklessly omitted and relevant, so must be included in reconstruction.
What procedure must a reviewing court use when omissions are shown?	Dempsey: (implicitly) court should consider omissions’ materiality.	Bucknell: (implicitly) district court’s approach sufficed.	Court: Where officer acted with at least reckless disregard, the court must perform a word‑by‑word reconstruction of the affidavit inserting excised facts before assessing materiality.
Did the reconstructed affidavit lack probable cause for the charged crimes?	Dempsey: once the omitted exculpatory facts are included, no reasonable jury could find probable cause.	Bucknell: even with omissions corrected, the totality of the evidence still gave a fair probability a crime occurred.	Court: Reconstructed affidavit still established probable cause for all charged offenses; no reasonable jury could find otherwise.
Effect on false arrest / malicious prosecution claims	Dempsey: lack of probable cause defeats arrest and prosecution, supporting §1983 liability.	Bucknell: probable cause defeats those claims.	Court: Probable cause existed; summary judgment for defendants affirmed—claims fail.

Key Cases Cited

Wilson v. Russo, 212 F.3d 781 (3d Cir. 2000) (sets standard for reckless omissions and reconstruction of affidavits)
Reedy v. Evanson, 615 F.3d 197 (3d Cir. 2010) (discusses affidavit reconstruction and recklessness inquiry)
Sherwood v. Mulvihill, 113 F.3d 396 (3d Cir. 1997) (probable cause requires a fair probability crime was committed)
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (totality‑of‑the‑circumstances probable cause standard)
Wright v. City of Philadelphia, 409 F.3d 595 (3d Cir. 2005) (officers need not correctly resolve conflicting evidence to establish probable cause)
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (U.S. 1984) (role of neutral magistrate and good‑faith considerations for warrants)
Sharrar v. Felsing, 128 F.3d 810 (3d Cir. 1997) (victim statements ordinarily sufficient for probable cause absent substantial contradictory evidence)
Montgomery v. De Simone, 159 F.3d 120 (3d Cir. 1998) (summary judgment proper only if no reasonable jury could find lack of probable cause)
Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143 (U.S. 1972) (probable cause does not require evidence sufficient to convict)
Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (U.S. 1986) (qualified immunity standard addressing unreasonable issuance of warrants)