19-2452
3rd Cir.May 6, 2020Background
- Aug. 21, 2015: Dreibelbis flew a drone at a Centre County fair; a security guard grabbed and broke the drone.
- An altercation followed; Dreibelbis began recording, guards tackled him and seized his phone, stopping the video.
- Trooper Benjamin Clark arrived, spoke with the guards, reviewed the video, told Dreibelbis he could go, but one month later filed a citation charging disorderly conduct.
- At the magisterial district court trial Clark called the guards as witnesses; Dreibelbis offered his video and testified; the judge found him not guilty.
- Dreibelbis sued Clark (malicious prosecution, abuse of process, First Amendment retaliation). The district court granted summary judgment for Clark; the Third Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Malicious prosecution (probable cause & malice) | Dreibelbis: no probable cause — video and acquittal show he did not act disorderly; Clark suborned perjury. | Clark: relied on guards’ reports of yelling, shouting, attempting to push; reasonable belief in probable cause; no evidence Clark knew guards lied. | Affirmed: probable cause existed; no evidence of malicious motive; acquittal irrelevant to probable cause standard. |
| Abuse of process | Dreibelbis: Clark used the citation/prosecution for an improper purpose (e.g., retaliation). | Clark: issued citation based on belief in guilt; no evidence of an improper purpose. | Affirmed: no evidence Clark used process for an improper purpose. |
| First Amendment retaliation | Dreibelbis: prosecution was retaliation for his complaints about guards and for expressing rights to fly drone. | Clark: no causal link; probable cause defeats retaliatory-prosecution claim. | Affirmed: no evidence of causation; probable cause precludes retaliation claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Zimmerman v. Corbett, 873 F.3d 414 (3d Cir. 2017) (elements of malicious prosecution under § 1983 and state law)
- Wright v. City of Phila., 409 F.3d 595 (3d Cir. 2005) (probable cause standard is lower than conviction standard)
- Commonwealth v. Love, 896 A.2d 1276 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006) (disorderly conduct conviction supported by loud, disruptive conduct)
- Lerner v. Lerner, 954 A.2d 1229 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2008) (abuse of process requires using process for an improper purpose)
- Thomas v. Independence Twp., 463 F.3d 285 (3d Cir. 2006) (elements of a First Amendment retaliation claim)
- Miller v. Mitchell, 598 F.3d 139 (3d Cir. 2010) (retaliatory-prosecution claims require showing lack of probable cause)
- Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006) (causation requirement in retaliatory prosecution claims)