SAYEED AL SHEHAB VS. NEW JERSEY TRANSIT CORP. (L-5277-14, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-4705-16T4

On Oct. 1, 2013 NJ Transit police conducted an undercover sting at Pavonia-Newport using a planted "bait iPad." Plainclothes Officer Toni Cruz observed Sayeed Al Shehab pick up the iPad, hold it up, and say, "Someone forgot their iPad."
Uniformed officers were nearby; Al Shehab did not approach them or the train operator to report the found device. He boarded the train and later exited at the next stop; Cruz followed and observed him pass other uniformed officers without mentioning the iPad.
Plainclothes Sergeant Dominic Imperiale stopped Al Shehab off the train; after a brief exchange Al Shehab was arrested for theft, held ~3 hours, charged, then later downgraded and dismissed.
Plaintiffs (Al Shehab and his wife) sued multiple NJ Transit officers and the agency for false arrest, unlawful imprisonment, malicious prosecution, NJ Civil Rights Act violations, and negligent hiring/training; two defendants were dismissed earlier; Cruz and Imperiale moved for summary judgment which the trial court denied.
The Appellate Division reviewed de novo and reversed, holding Cruz and Imperiale entitled to qualified immunity because they had probable cause (or a reasonable belief that probable cause existed) to arrest.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether officers had probable cause to effect a warrantless arrest for theft	Al Shehab: his conduct was innocent — he picked up the iPad to locate its owner and intended to return it to lost-and-found; no theft occurred	Cruz/Imperiale: facts known to officers (picking up bait iPad, walking past uniformed officers, boarding/exiting train without reporting it) gave a well-grounded suspicion of theft	Held: Objectively reasonable officers had probable cause (or reasonably could have believed it existed); arrest lawful
Whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity (clearly established law)	Al Shehab: constitutional violation for warrantless arrest; rights were violated and therefore defendants not immune	Defendants: even if close, law did not clearly establish conduct as unlawful; additionally, probable cause existed so immunity applies	Held: Court need not decide clearly-established prong because probable cause existed; qualified immunity applies and defendants' dismissal was required

Brown v. State, 230 N.J. 84 (N.J. 2017) (overview and procedure for applying qualified immunity under NJ law)
Michigan v. DeFillippo, 443 U.S. 31 (U.S. 1979) (warrantless arrest permissible with probable cause)
Morillo v. Torres, 222 N.J. 104 (N.J. 2015) (probable cause and qualified immunity standards in false arrest claims)
Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 142 N.J. 520 (N.J. 1995) (summary judgment standard; view facts in favor of nonmoving party)
Kirk v. City of Newark, 109 N.J. 173 (N.J. 1988) (reasonable-officer belief as alternative defense to lack of actual probable cause)