Smith v. United States of America
121 F. Supp. 3d 112
D.D.C.2015Background
- On Nov. 5, 2009, Ronald Smith (a federal agency driver) dropped off passengers near a Capitol checkpoint and had a brief heated exchange with U.S. Capitol Police Officer Corey Rogers.
- Video and radio recordings show Rogers walking away, Smith pulling off quickly in a U-turn that passed close to Rogers, and Rogers radioing that Smith had “intentionally almost struck” him.
- Officer Lawrence Anyaso reviewed the incident (and referenced the footage) and arrested Smith; Smith was charged with assault on a police officer and assault with a deadly weapon; charges were later dropped.
- Smith sued under the FTCA for false arrest, malicious prosecution, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and brought a Bivens Fourth Amendment claim against Rogers and Anyaso.
- Defendants moved to dismiss or for summary judgment, relying principally on the CCTV and radio recordings to show probable cause; the court treated the motion as for summary judgment on probable cause and qualified immunity grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| False arrest / probable cause to arrest | Smith: he did not strike or come close to striking Rogers; arrest was baseless | Defs: video and radio show Smith drove aggressively and passed close to Rogers, supporting probable cause | Court: probable cause existed; false arrest claim dismissed |
| Malicious prosecution | Smith: officers lied, prosecution lacked basis | Defs: objective facts (video) supported arrest and prosecution; probable cause to prosecute | Court: probable cause to prosecute as an objective matter; malicious prosecution claim dismissed |
| Bivens (Fourth Amendment) | Smith: constitutional violation from false arrest/prosecution and fabricated reports | Defs: probable cause and qualified immunity bar Bivens liability; statute of limitations also asserted | Court: Bivens claims fail because probable cause existed; related immunity/limitations arguments unnecessary to resolve |
| Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) | Smith: officers falsified reports and detained him despite exculpatory footage | Defs: alleged misconduct not extreme/outrageous as required by D.C. law | Court: allegations (even if false reports) and detention did not meet the high IIED standard; IIED claim dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (authorizes damages action against federal officers for constitutional violations)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state plausible claim)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (when videotape captures events, court should view facts in light depicted by tape)
- Amobi v. D.C. Dep’t of Corr., 755 F.3d 980 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (false arrest and malicious prosecution analyzed together; probable cause defeats claim)
- Scales v. District of Columbia, 973 A.2d 722 (D.C. 2009) (probable cause is an affirmative defense to false arrest under D.C. law)
- District of Columbia v. Murphy, 635 A.2d 929 (D.C. 1993) (probable cause inquiry depends on objective facts)
- Ruffin v. United States, 642 A.2d 1288 (D.C. 1994) (elements of simple assault)
- Perry v. United States, 36 A.3d 799 (D.C. 2011) (assault with a dangerous weapon when vehicle used dangerously)