Stansbury v. Wertman
721 F.3d 84
| 2d Cir. | 2013Background
- On April 4, 2006 a woman shoplifted about $800 worth of goods from a Stop & Shop in Somers, NY; store employees (including a trained store detective) observed the theft on a store monitor and followed the suspect into a white van, noting the plate.
- Trooper Chad Wertman investigated, recovered an Old Navy bag with a bus receipt, reviewed store surveillance video, and traced a credit-card receipt to Nicole Stansbury (plaintiff Linda Stansbury’s daughter), who said she had been at Old Navy that evening.
- Wertman visited the Stansbury home, observed Linda Stansbury and later compared her DMV photo to the surveillance video; he and other officers believed she matched the perpetrator and later showed Linda’s single DMV photo (in violation of protocol) to the store witnesses, who signed sworn identifications.
- Linda Stansbury was arrested, tried in town court for petit larceny, and acquitted after a two-day bench trial; she then sued Wertman under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest and malicious prosecution.
- The district court denied Wertman’s summary-judgment motion, finding genuine issues of material fact on probable cause; the Second Circuit reversed, holding that, under the totality of the circumstances, Wertman had probable (and thus arguable probable) cause as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wertman had probable cause to arrest Stansbury for shoplifting | Stansbury argued identifications and evidence were unreliable (flawed single-photo ID, video not definitive, height mismatch), creating a triable issue on probable cause | Wertman argued combined circumstantial evidence (Old Navy links, bags, credit-card trace, evasive interview behavior, prior larceny arrest, officers’ and witnesses’ IDs) provided probable cause | Court held no reasonable juror could conclude lack of probable cause; probable cause existed as a matter of law |
| Whether Wertman is entitled to qualified immunity (arguable probable cause) | Stansbury contended arguable probable cause was lacking because of suggestive ID procedures and equivocal evidence | Wertman argued that even if IDs were imperfect, his conduct was objectively reasonable and arguable probable cause existed | Because probable cause existed, arguable probable cause (and qualified immunity) follows; judgment for Wertman required |
| Whether the district court properly assessed identifications in isolation | Stansbury relied on district court’s approach emphasizing each flawed piece of evidence separately to show triable issues | Wertman argued the court erred by not evaluating the totality of circumstances, which combines inculpatory and exculpatory facts | Court held the district court erred; totality-of-the-circumstances analysis requires combining all probative evidence |
| Whether improper photo procedures (single-photo showup) defeated probable cause or required denial of summary judgment | Stansbury emphasized the suggestive, Field Manual-violating single-photo display and argued identifications were unreliable | Wertman acknowledged improper procedure but argued witnesses’ sworn identifications and other corroborating evidence still could supply probable cause | Court held that although the photo procedure was improper, it did not eliminate the weight of the other corroborating evidence and did not preclude probable cause |
Key Cases Cited
- Jaegly v. Couch, 439 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 2006) (defines probable cause standard for arrests)
- Panetta v. Crowley, 460 F.3d 388 (2d Cir. 2006) (courts consider facts available to officer immediately before arrest and evaluate totality of circumstances)
- Jenkins v. City of New York, 478 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 2007) (totality analysis may combine imperfect identification evidence to yield probable cause)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity framework; courts may address probable cause before immunity)
- Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (1949) (foundation for totality/probable cause approach)
- Savino v. City of New York, 331 F.3d 63 (2d Cir. 2003) (probable cause is absolute defense to false arrest)
- Manganiello v. City of New York, 612 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 2010) (probable cause defeats malicious prosecution claim)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (summary-judgment standard where record viewed as a whole may foreclose genuine factual dispute)