Wydrick Phillips v. Jiminez Allen
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 2644
7th Cir.2012Background
- Ruby Graham was robbed at a library, her mother Elizabeth injured; Ruby identified Phillips from a photo array after the event.
- Phillips was arrested for robbery and attempted murder based on Ruby’s identification; he was later acquitted due to insufficient corroboration.
- Phillips filed §1983 suit against the Village of Bellwood and seven officers for false arrest; district court granted summary judgment for defendants.
- Court held that probable cause could be established by an eyewitness identification and need not await further corroboration or all leads.
- Phillips argued the identification procedure was unduly suggestive and that police should have pursued other tips; court held such concerns did not defeat probable cause at arrest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause based on eyewitness identification | Phillips contends the identification was unreliable due to tainted procedure. | Police had probable cause from Ruby’s identification; Biggers framework not for arrest stage. | Probable cause established; arrest proper. |
| Duty to exhaust leads before arrest | Police should have pursued the other tips before arresting. | Not required to chase every lead prior to arrest in violent crimes. | Arrest proper without complete pursuit of all leads. |
| Effect of naming the suspect on identification | Mentioning a name taints identification. | No per se rule invalidating identifications from mentioning a name. | No such per se invalidating rule; not extended to damages here. |
| Biggers framework applicability to §1983 damages | Biggers should apply to arrests to assess damages. | Biggers applies to trial admissibility, not to arrest damages; extension would be improper. | Biggers not extended to damages for arrests; no §1983 damages here absent police-created forbidden technique. |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (probable cause assessment at arrest stage)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 131 S. Ct. 2074 (U.S. 2011) (qualified immunity and motives do not defeat probable cause)
- Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (U.S. 2004) (police actions judged by objective standards)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1996) (pretextual stops analyzed under objective influence)
- United States v. Williams, 522 F.3d 809 (7th Cir. 2008) (evidence required when challenging eyewitness procedures)
- Perry v. New Hampshire, 132 S. Ct. 716 (U.S. 2012) (Biggers framework limited to jury admissibility context; eyewitness reliability disputes remain unsettled)
- Gramenos v. Jewel Companies, Inc., 797 F.2d 432 (7th Cir. 1986) (eyewitness identifications can create probable cause without corroboration)
- Askew v. Chicago, 440 F.3d 894 (7th Cir. 2006) (limitations on reliability of lineups and identifications)
- Hernandez v. Sheahan, 455 F.3d 772 (7th Cir. 2006) (discusses admissibility and prosecutorial handling of evidence)