Berg v. County of Allegheny

to trial and he was therefore not App. going “No on responded, Sir.” which Weeks prejudiced by alleged the ineffective assis- 44. tance. assertion colloquy belies Weeks’ This going on to have insisted

that he would III. rami- legal if about the trial he known testify. to fications of refusal Govan’s CONCLUSION explanation clear to judge’s of the light controversy are not unaware of the We respect with to uncertainty of the Weeks currently surrounding imposition the of statements, of Govan’s admissibility the penalty country. the Howev- death this do so can hard- alleged failure to Willard’s er, upon this case does not trench the of prejudiced Weeks. The absence ly have controversy, issues the forefront of alleged legal deficient prejudice from usually identification of the defendant or clear. representation is competency any the defendant’s or criminal stages critical of the event may why, wonder under these While one proceeding. This is a in which an case circumstances, plead proceeded Weeks to pled to murder- estranged guilty husband explanation is re- guilty, in this case friend, plea and and that ing his wife her himself made in the record. Weeks flected supported' by ample was evidence. in his pleading guilty reason for plain his appropriate Whether this is an case for testimony. post-conviction penalty administration of the death mind, Q: your the main reason So political judicial Only question, not one. pled guilty putting was to avoid you judicial presented one issue to this family through family your victim’s appeal, and we have no basis court this re-living events of the the trauma of disagree judgment with the of the Dis- killings? findings trict and the the Dela- Court Yes. A: [Weeks] ware courts that Weeks had not shown Q: you thought by pleading And that he received ineffective assistance accomplish would that? guilty you counsel. will therefore affirm the We A: Yes. [Weeks] denying the District judgment of Court (Post-Conviction Hearing App. at 499 corpus. writ of habeas Transcript). state-

This is consistent Willard’s guilty plea that

ments at the time of the plead guilty chose to due to con-

Weeks family family

cerns for his and the testimony post at the victims and Willard’s Raymond BERG, Jr., Appellant, A. hearing. conviction The District Court’s regard- conclusion that further information ALLEGHENY; Allegheny COUNTY OF over whether ing legal uncertainties Services; County Adult Probation may out-of-court statements be Govan’s Gardner; Benton; Richard R. Debbie against used him was irrelevant Weeks’ Wolfgang; Ginny Demko. Glenn Allen ample support plead guilty decision to has No. 98-3557. ineluctably in the record. It follows implications Weeks was advised of Appeals, States Court of United if possible testify, by failure to not Govan’s Third Circuit. and, in judge, then at least Willard Argued March 1999. event, committed any emotionally he was July Filed to make pleading guilty. Weeks failed requisite showing that there is a rea- probability sonable that but for Willard’s errors,

alleged Weeks would have insisted Services, Benton,

Adult Probation Debbie Gardner, Ginny Richard R. Demko. Audrey Copeland, Esquire, (Argued), J. Marshall, Warner, Dennehey, Coleman & PA, Goggin, Philadelphia, Dunlop, Scott G. Marshall, Warner, Esquire, Dennehey, PA, Goggin, Pittsburgh, Coleman & Attor- neys Appellee, Wolfgang. Glenn Allen MANSMANN, Before: SCIRICA and NYGAARD, Judges. Circuit THE OPINION OF COURT PER CURIAM. Raymond Berg appeals

Plaintiff the Dis- trict grant summary judgment Court’s all rights defendants this civil action alleging imprisonment false arrest and erroneously based on an issued warrant. part will affirm in in part. We and reverse Background I. 14, 1994, Gardner, July On Richard supervisor Allegheny County Adult Pro- Services, requested bation an arrest war- Banks, rant for Paul who had violated parole. of his a judge conditions After the approved Court of Common Pleas the warrant, sent an Gardner Arrest Warrant Demko, Virginia Information Sheet to responsible warrant clerk for and issuing clearing all arrest in Allegheny warrants County. The Information Sheet listed name, offense, birth, Banks’s date of crimi- number, complaint Security nal Social number, 3, 1994, and August address. On generated Demko the warrant using the County’s computerized Integrated Court (ICIS). System oper- Information ICIS by typing ated a criminal complaint num- computer, automatically ber into the which remaining information and retrieves Breault, Esquire, (Argued), Theodore E. displays on the user’s screen. Associates, PA, Pittsburgh, Breault & At- Unfortunately, transposed Demko two torney Appellant. for digits complaint in Banks’ criminal num- Anderson, result, Eric N. Esquire, (Argued), ber. As a she entered the criminal Buckler, Eck, Meyer, Darragh, complaint plaintiff, Raymond Bebenek & number of A. PA, Jr., Pittsburgh, Attorney Appellees, years for Berg, who three earlier had County Allegheny, County completed parole a six-month for Allegheny, term Dep. through at 141:16 had. See Gardner influence. Demko’s under driving name, (A.397-98). Demko, Berg’s 142:3 He then called displayed computer screen - number, birth, complaint her that no warrant criminal informed date of address, number, all of Banks, and Security requested and that she issued for Social information from the were different in the record indicates Nothing which issue one. Information Sheet. Demko, Arrest Warrant on the at that suggested Gardner however, concedes, no- that Demko time, an may procéssed that she have erro- the screen on only that ticed address neous warrant. different, the In- address on. from the was executed on the Berg’s warrant at 7. Appellant’s Br. See formation Sheet. 30, 1994, Al- by Glenn night of December other informa- that the did not realize She an elected constable Wolfgang, len id. as well. See tion was different County. Wolfgang, who Westmoreland contained' Concluding that the ICIS arrested, person earned a fee for each for incorrect address or otherwise old outstanding executed frequently in- Banks, manually changed the Demko Allegheny County, and warrants replaced Berg’s in the ICIS. She formation four planned 30 he to make December address, Sewickley, Pennsylvania, home, leaving Wolfgang arrests. Before address, listed on last Banks’s known telephone and Berg’s retrieved address Sheet, Finleyville, Pennsyl- Information using computer number software/on-line she only change vania. That was purchased from a credit he had system made. ' however, he did not Apparently, union. generated the warrant Demko then retrieved, and that the address he notice Allegheny and sent it to Berg’s arrest on the warrant for the one listed name Gardner’s County Sheriffs Office. arrest, in- proceeded different. He were were written on telephone number Finleyville address listed on stead to the person from whom as the contact warrant warrant, only to that it was an discover obtained. could be additional information then tele- Wolfgang abandoned house. the Information also returned Demko and asked for directions phoned Berg Banks warrant requesting the Sheet Wolfgang called three or four his house. date-stamping it to indicate after Gardner directions and took more times for further Thus, had been issued. that the warrant Finleyville to to drive from over an hour error, and her clerical because of Demko’s Wolfgang deposition, Berg’s house. his change the informa- subsequent decision cooperative” on Berg as.“[v]ery described ICIS, in an arrest war- tion contained telephone. Berg rather than rant was issued for depo- in her Banks. Demko later testified arrived, en- Berg was Wolfgang When that, over 500 warrants issuing sition pre- at a at his house tertaining guests 1989, only is the per month since “this informed party. Berg New Year’s Eve occurred.” this has ever occasion where in Fin- he never lived Wolfgang that release doc- produce and offered to leyville 16, August case on reviewing Banks’ longer on that he was no proving uments 1994, that Information noticed Gardner Berg’s confirming that parole. After stamped (indicating the had been Sheet security number were and social warrant) birthday but, according to his issuance of a warrant, those on the Wolf- the same as ICIS, in fact existed. no warrant review docu- to look at the release moment,” gang refused that, “for a brief admits Gardner ments, them Berg bring telling instead possibility considered the may he have ' Wolfgang his issued, Berg him. did show but warrant was that erroneous license, Berg was confirming that driver’s was quickly have realized would Wolfgang But sim- longer parole.1 no way whether one practical no to determine phase” of a knowing during penalty "the acknowledged deposition, Wolfgang 1. In his 268

ply Berg told not to take too much time warrant gave Wolfgang probable cause for retrieving the the arrest. release documents because people he had more three to arrest Legal/Analytical II. Framework night. appeal, Berg presses only On his Wolfgang Allegheny County did call the § 1983 claim.3 a prima To make facie case Office, being Sheriffs but after told that § under the plaintiff must demon “active,” the warrant was still he arrested strate person acting that a under color of Berg. Wolfgang try did not to call Gard- deprived law him of a right. federal See Wolfgang ner. Gardner testified that if Groman v. Township Manalapan, 47 had called and asked him a about warrant (3d Cir.1995). Here, F.3d it is arrest, Berg’s Gardner would have undisputed that were acting defendants Berg’s Wolfgang checked file and told not under color of law they when issued and Berg. to arrest Berg’s executed the warrant arrest. office, strip- At the Berg Sheriffs step The “identify next is to searched, fingerprinted, inoculated, and exact underlying right contours of the said placed in Allegheny County Jail. Be- have County been violated.” Sacra cause Probation Services and courts Lewis, mento v. 841 n. holidays, Berg were closed for the re- (1998). S.Ct. 140 L.Ed.2d 1043 Sec 3, 1995, jail January mained in until or tion 1983 is not source of substantive approximately days. Finally, five after in- rights provide and does not redress for by Berg’s attorney, tervention Demko is- plaintiff common law torts —the must al a Notification to sued Clear Warrant lege a violation of a right. federal See Berg was and released. McCollan, 137, 146, Baker v. U.S. (1979). Berg L.Ed.2d 433 against filed suit Allegheny Coun- arrest, alleges subjected he was to false Gardner, Demko, ty, Wolfgang imprisonment, pro false and denial of due court, Pennsylvania alleging state civil §§ cess violation of U.S.C. 1983 and §§ rights violations under 42 U.S.C. 1985(3), Fourth, Fifth, and the and Four 1985(3), (1994), Fourth, Fifth, and the teenth Amendments. and Fourteenth Amendments.2 The de- Supreme fendants removed the case to the District The Court has held Pennsyl- Court for the Western government District that when gov behavior is and, following discovery, vania moved for by specific erned constitutional amend ment, summary judgment. The process District Court analysis inappropri due granted summary judgment to all Although police defen- ate. not all actions dants, ruling was not governed by officers are the Fourth Amendment, facially 842-43, unconstitutional because the valid see Lewis DUI provides part: § sentence defendant must surrender his 42 U.S.C. 1983 driver's license. who, Every person any under color of stat- ute, ordinance, custom, officer, regulation, or us- Berg parole sued also his former Benton, age, any Allegheny County Territory of State or or the Debbie and Adult District Columbia, subjects, Probation Benton Services. was dismissed of to be or causes sub- Berg's consent when it became clear jected, any citizen of the United States or that she was not involved in his arrest. The person jurisdiction other within the thereof District Court dismissed the Probation Ser- deprivation any rights, privileges, to the of office, concluding vices the office is an arm of by or immunities secured the Constitution County legal without distinct existence. laws, party injured and shall be liable to the 97-928, Berg County Allegheny, See v. No. of (W.D.Pa. law, equity, in an action at suit in or other 23, 1998). slip op. Sep. 4 n. 2 at proper proceeding for redress. Berg challenge does not this determination appeal.

269 1097, 1175, denied, 112 S.Ct. 502 U.S. during cert. accidents (noting 1708 S.Ct. (1992); v. 420 Landol-Rivera by the 117 L.Ed.2d “covered” are not chases police (1st Cosme, 791, 796 constitutionality 906 F.2d Cir. Amendment), Cruz Fourth 1990). by governed is by state officials arrests of than due rather Amendment

the Fourth police if a officer fires his example, For id.; v. United States See analysis. process suspect and the fleeing robbery gun. at 7, 259, 117 Lanier, 272 n. S.Ct. 520 U.S. by- inadvertently strikes an innocent bullet (1997); Graham v. 432 1219, L.Ed.2d 137 stander, Amend- has been no Fourth there 1865, 394, 386, Connor, 109 S.Ct. 490 U.S. Medeiros, at 150 F.3d ment seizure. See (1989); v. Bar- Blackwell 443 L.Ed.2d 104 Rucker, 281; 168-69; Landol- 946 F.2d at Cir.1994). (5th 298, ton, 302 34 F.3d If, Rivera, other F.2d at 795. on the 906 of Therefore, analysis limit our will we hand, at gun directly fires his the officer Amendment his Fourth arrest Berg’s the mistaken bystander the innocent 142-43, 99 Baker, at 443 U.S. claim. See robber, bystander belief that (1979) § false 1983 (interpreting 2689 S.Ct. has oc- Amendment seizure then Fourth in Fourth grounded as claim imprisonment Brower, 489 U.S. curred. See Groman, 47 F.3d rights); Amendment California, 401 (citing Hill v. S.Ct. (same). recognize we Although 802-05, L.Ed.2d U.S. arrest claims false that some possibility (1971)). analysis, process subject to a due be might facts, law to these Applying not could that this record we also conclude arrest consti Berg’s doubt that is no there claim. process support a due Amendment for Fourth tuted a seizure Fourth Amend- of analysis Our thought Wolfgang if purposes. Even First, three-step process. claim is ment Banks, his intentional arresting he was he was seized whether determine we must person of control over application so, If purposes. Fourth Amendment sei a Fourth Amendment Berg be would that seizure whether we next determine Here, however, he Wolfgang knew zure. prohibi- Amendment’s violated the Fourth Banks, than arresting Berg rather Final- seizures. against unreasonable tion so, though to do even clearly intended a Fourth Amendment if has ly, The an erroneous warrant. motivated violation, determine which we must then, arrest violat is whether the question, defendants, may be held liable any, if Amendment. ed Fourth it. prohibits Fourth The Amendment See Or probable cause. Seizures arrests without Fourth Amendment III. Police, 71 F.3d Jersey State satti v. New is seized for Fourth person A Cir.1995). not previously As if de only he is purposes Amendment ed, Court concluded the District applied to intentionally by means tained facially valid Berg’s arrest was warrant for A of movement. his terminate freedom supplied probable it therefore and that when unintended occurs even seizure County Berg him. v. See cause to detention, long object so person is 97-928, 4-7 slip op. at No. Allegheny, of (W.D.Pa. intentionally are as the means detention 1998) (Wolfgang); Sept. v. See applied person. to that Brower 97-928, slip Allegheny, No. County 593, 596, Inyo, County of 1998) (re (W.D.Pa. Sept. op. at 4-5 (1989) (citing 103 L.Ed.2d defendants). agree. cannot We maining 797, 802-05, 91 California, 401 U.S. v. Hill in White- decision (1971)); Supreme The Court’s 1106, see 484 28 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. 1031, Warden, 560, 164, 401 U.S. 91 S.Ct. O’Connell, ley v. 150 v. F.3d also Medeiros (1971), as our own as well (2d Cir.1998); L.Ed.2d 306 28 Rucker 169 Harford decisions, an (4th clear that Cir.1991), make 278, subsequent F.2d 281 County, 946 270

erroneously provide issued warrant cannot flyer officers, based on a issued other probable an Whiteley, cause for arrest. In but flyer “[i]f the has been issued the a county sheriff obtained a warrant suspicion, absence of a reasonable then a Whiteley’s conclusory stop objective arrest based on a upon the reliance it vio- complaint. juris- 232, Police officers another lates the Fourth Amendment.” Id. at Whiteley, Evans, diction arrested discovering evi- 105 S.Ct. In 675. Arizona v. 514 1, 1185, dence later introduced at his trial. The U.S. 115 S.Ct. 131 L.Ed.2d 34 argued (1995), state arresting because the policies the Court held the officers were unaware of the defect in the the underlying exclusionary rule do not warrant, they probable had cause to require suppression arrest of evidence seized whether or not the sheriff did. But pursuant to an erroneous warrant result- Supreme Court held that the ing arrest was from a clerical error. But the Court unconstitutional and ordered also Whiteley the evidence noted that “clearly retains in determining excluded: relevance police whether officers have violated the Fourth Amend- Certainly police upon officers called to 13, Thus, ment.” Id. 115 1185. S.Ct. aid other in executing officers Supreme Court has made clear that a warrants are entitled to assume that the mistakenly issued or executed warrant requesting officers aid offered the mag- provide probable cannot cause for an ar- istrate the information requisite sup- rest. port independent judicial an assessment Where, probable however, cause. applied princi- Our cases have the same true, contrary turns out to be an other- Powell, In ple. Rogers v. 120 F.3d 446 illegal

wise arrest cannot be insulated Cir.1997), county probation officer told challenge by from the decision of the trooper one state that a second state instigating rely officer to on fellow offi- trooper reported that a warrant exist- cers to make the arrest. ed for Roger’s arrest. Relying on the probation 568, representation officer’s that a Id. at in Whiteley, S.Ct. 1031. As existed, warrant the first trooper state ar- Constable Wolfgang relied on an arrest Rogers fact, rested warrant, following day. assuming had been issued after however, there was no such warrant and presentation to a judge of evidence suffi- Rogers §a filed 1983 action for violation probable cient establish cause.4 Also as of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment Whiteley, contrary “the out turn[ed] rights. true”; Gardner, Demko, be neither nor anyone else associated with the creation of here, Like Rogers defendants defen- probable

the warrant had cause to arrest argued dants arresting officer’s Berg. “mistaken that an belief arrest warrant

In United v. Hensley, States supplied U.S. had issued for Rogers the proba- 221, 675, (1985), 83 L.Ed.2d 604 required by ble cause the Fourth Amend- Court, primarily relying Whiteley, on rejected ment.” Id. at 452-53. We this police may held that a Terry stop conduct argument, holding that legality “[t]he of a Circuit, 396, Appeals (5th Leon-Reyna, Cir.1991) The Court of for the Second 930 F.2d Whiteley, (en banc) curiam) courts, upheld (same). without (per discussion of has Other relying arrest based on a warrant later Whiteley, found to have have continued to hold improperly issued. improperly See United States v. that an issued warrant cannot Towne, 880, (2d Cir.1989), probable 870 F.2d 884-85 provide cause for an arrest. See denied, Meade, cert. United States v. 110 F.3d 193-94 (1989); (1st Cir.1997); State, 104 L.Ed.2d 1010 see also United & 194 n. 2 Ott v. (10th Shareef, (1992); States v. 100 F.3d Md. 600 A.2d State v. Cir.1996) (upholding constitutionality Taylor, (R.I.1993). of a 621 A.2d The decisions, Teriy stop good-faith Supreme based on subsequent reliance on Court's as own, provided by Whiteley inaccurate information other law well as our convince us officials); enforcement governing United States v. De remains law.

271 significant not find it that preme issued Court did solely on statements seizure based by unlawful arrest was occasioned the the the on whether depends fellow officers by clerk, opposed to a mistake of court as pos- statements the who issued officers 13-15, police1officer. 514 U.S. at 115 See seize the sus- requisite basis to the sessed Similarly, Rogers, the ar 1185.5 S.Ct. Hensley, 469 U.S. (citing 453 Id. at pect.” a resting probation officers relied on offi 675). “neither Because 105 S.Ct. that another had trooper cer’s statement probation officer] trooper] [the nor [the arrest, Rogers’ a existed for said warrant facts and requisite of the knowledge yet we -held the arrest unconstitutional a find- support necessary circumstances whether the inquiring mistake without cause,” we concluded the probable ing of .trooper’s .probation the or the officer’s. the Fourth Amendment. arrest violated 452-55; Murray see also See 120 F.3d at similarly rejected argument Id. We (7th City Chicago, v. 634 F.2d war- mistakenly a issued that reliance on Cir.1980) un (holding although was cause in United supply probable can rant police department clear whether or (3d Miles, F.2d 487-88 v. States office had failed to transmit an clerk’s Bianco, Cir.1972), v. and United States warrant, a seems clear “[i]t order quashing Cir.1951). F.2d a sustained violation con that [plaintiff] arrested and rights being stitutional distinguishing only potentially The warrant”). pursuant to an invalid detained is that the mistake feature of arrest clerk, by a court rather here was made officials who government Because do not police officer. We believe than prob- issued the warrant here did not have significant, however. this distinction is vio- Berg, cause to arrest able provides: “[N]o The Fourth Amendment According- lated Fourth Amendment. issue, upon probable but shall summary judgment Warrants not have ly, should ” Const, amend. IV. Be granted U.S. based on the existence of the cause.... govern arm of warrant.6 the courts are the cause warrants, we charged issuing

ment the Individual Liability IV. is directed to requirement this believe Defendants law officials as well as enforcement court supported by immunity or ade reading This Absent officers. defense, who, Evans, person acting under quate the Su- case law. In Arizona v. respondent was incarcerat recognize person- actions after Court did court 5. The "adjuncts not to the law enforcement nel are ed.... competitive engaged in the often enter- validity team ... Absent an attack on ferreting therefore prise arrested, out crime” and warrant under which he was re exclusionary unlikely application of the rule is simply despite spondent's complaint is their behavior. Id. to alter identity, he was protests his of mistaken relevant But this determination is not long Whatev weekend]. detained [over whether their mistakes to an assessment of might give rise to er claims this situation for, provide probable an arrest. can cause law, gives we think it rise under state tort States the United Constitu no claim under defendants, we do not read Baker 6. Unlike tion. McCollan, 443 U.S. 99 S.Ct. 143-44, 2689. Unlike McCol Id. at (1979) to hold otherwise. When L.Ed.2d lan, generation Berg challenges and exe arrested, claimed he was McCollan's brother arrest, his not the of the warrant for cution McCollan, presenting McCollan's identi- to be after arrest. At to incarcerate him decision parole, violated After his brother fication. not whether authorities must issue here is arrested on a warrant and McCollan was per investigate of a the claims of innocence jail. spent long weekend in The New Year's violation, legally but what arrested son who has been but Court no constitutional found requires before precautions the Constitution claim was differ- of McCollan's the substance and executed. See Berg’s: warrant is issued from an arrest ent (distinguishing Baker Murray, at 367 634 F.2d [R]espondent makes clear his § ground). on the same solely Baker’s was based on Sheriff claim 272 law, directly ly incompetent color of state and intentional or who knowingly those ”

ly applies the means which another is violate law.’ 71 F.3d 484 Orsatti seized in violation of the Fourth Amend 335, (quoting Malley Briggs, v. 475 U.S. § can (1986)). ment be held liable under 1983. As 345, 1092, 106 S.Ct. 89 L.Ed.2d 271 rule, general government lia official’s government A official is enti bility causing for an arrest is the same as immunity if qualified tled to his “conduct carrying Degel it out. See Gordon v. mann, (7th 295, Cir.1994); clearly 29 does not violate established statuto F.3d 298 see 168, Thompson, ry rights also Kilbourn v. 103 or constitutional of which a U.S. rea (1880) 200, L.Ed. (holding leg 26 377 person sonable would have Har known.” directing responsi 800, 818, islators an arrest are as Fitzgerald, low v. 457 U.S. 102 arrest). who 2727, (1982). ble as those effected As the S.Ct. 73 L.Ed.2d 396 §' Supreme explained, Court has an 1983 case, question context of this is wheth ticipates “respon that an individual will be “a er reasonable officer could have be consequences sible for the natural of his lawful, lieved that his her conduct or 335, Malley Briggs, actions.” v. in light clearly established law and 7, 1092, n. 106 344 S.Ct. 89 L.Ed.2d 271 the in possession.” information the officer’s (1986) (holding police that a officer who 810, Felsing, Sharrar v. 128 F.3d 826 probable obtains arrest warrant without Cir.1997) (citing Bryant, Hunter v. 502 § though cause is liable under 1983 even 224, 227, 534, U.S. S.Ct. 116 L.Ed.2d arrest). another officer made the actual It (1991)) (per curiam); Anderson v. § liability is thus clear for an 635, 641, Creighton, 483 U.S. 107 S.Ct. beyond unlawful arrest can extend the ar 3034, (1987). 97 L.Ed.2d 523 inquiry, Our resting officer to other officials whose in then, parts. has two Wolfgang’s Did con arresting tentional actions set the officer clearly so, duct violate established law? If turn, then, in motion. We to the issue of did he reasonably nevertheless believe that which, any, if in the defendants this case light his conduct was lawful in of the infor can be Berg’s held liable for unconstitu possessed mation he at the time? tional arrest. 1994, At the time of arrest was clear that an arrest could be made Wolfgang A. Constable only probable cause. Although Rog- Wolfgang Constable contends ers was decided in Whiteley clearly that he is entitled to qualified immunity established in 1971 the conditions under from facially suit because he executed a which an arresting prob- officer can obtain valid warrant. Unless historical facts are able cause from a warrant. As we have dispute, qualified immunity is a matter noted, already the warrant at issue in this for the court. See Infra provide probable case did not cause one; inquiry objective The is an Therefore, Berg. we must consider subjective arresting officer’s beliefs about whether a reasonable constable Wolf- probable the existence of cause are not position gang’s could have concluded Creighton, relevant. See Anderson v. probable there was cause to arrest U.S. 97 L.Ed.2d Wolfgang based on the information had at (1987). In considering of quali claims time. immunity, fied courts are sensitive to broad range profes “[t]he reasonable Ordinarily, it is reasonable for an sional judgment accorded” law enforce officer to assume that a warrant has been § ment officials in the 1983 context. probable issued cause. As the Su (6th Reeves, Greene 80 F.3d Baker, preme explained Court Cir.1996). Thus, qualified immunity “the ample ‘gives requirements doctrine room for mistaken Given the that arrest be judgments’ by protecting plain- only ‘all but the probable made cause and that trial, public an immediate' arrest creates a speedy be accorded one detained danger flight. Malley, threat or executing an See think a sheriff we do not (holding 475 U.S. at 106 S.Ct. 1092 by the required Con- arrest warrant police that a office an affi where submits ev- investígate independently stitution , support request, in of a warrant innocence, davit whether ery claim of reviewing magistrate’s a concludes that identity or a on mistaken claim is based cause, probable establishes affidavit requisite intent. as lack of defense such § immune from the officer is not 1983 a 145-46, 99 2689. There 443 U.S. reasonably if “a well-trained officer lawsuit fore, immunity generally extended we have petitioner’s position in have known would an arrest on who makes based to an officer proba that his affidavit failed to establish that, belief objectively reasonable an ....”); Yancey also v. Car ble cause see Rogers, 120 F.3d a warrant. See valid (6th 1238, County, roll 876 F.2d 1243 Cir. trooper who (concluding that a state at 456 1989) (holding “[p]olice that officers are trooper another inaccurately by told orely judicially entitled t on a secured plaintiffs for the a warrant that there was § from a immunity for 1983 action warrant suit); Capone v. immune from arrest was illegal search and seizure unless the (3d 102, Marinelli, Cir. F.2d 105-06 868 probable in lacking warrant is so indicia of 1989) arresting were (holding that officers cause, in that official belief the existence of correctly of a bulletin light immune unreasonable.”). probable cause is existence of an arrest reporting the war alleged nature of the “as well as the summary judgment stage rant At the kidnaping] and [including here, child report offenses a from Alan Berg submitted possible Constable, was in young fact that child Pennsylvania who Springer, Township Groman v. danger”); objectively concluded' “it was not reason of cf. (3d 628, n. 47 F.3 635 Manalapan, prob 10 that Wolfgang to believe able for Mr. d Cir.1995) (affirming summary judgment of Mr. cause existed for the arrest able af plaintiff favor officers who arrested of under the circumstances. Accord Berg” plain that being told another officer Springer, ter the relevant circumstances ing to her). of warrant, Other tiff had assaulted courts invalid age included the status, adopted address, have the same rule. See appeals Berg’s socio-economic Hollowell, 1203, 59 1207- v. F.3d complet Pickens that he had Berg’s documentation Schwarz, (11th Cir.1995); Salmon v. cooperativeness, probation, Berg’s ed his (10th Cir.1991); F.2d 1140-41 Berg license the fact that a''driver’s Prairie, Tex., DUI, City Bennett v. Grand being parole on despite allegedly of (5th Cir.1989); Barr v. F.2d did not flee or ask his the fact (2d Cir.1987). Abrams, 810 F.2d having ample warn despite leave guests.to Sheahan, arrival, v. 34 F.3d Ruehman nonviol of and the ing Wolfgang’s But see (7th Cir.1994) (dicta) (questioning Springer the crime. stated nature of ent plaintiff who arrested whether officers have waited until the Wolfgang should computer report on an inaccurate re-opened January based probation office protected by were outstanding an warrant Berg’s look into claims. 1995 so he could also, immunity). qualified Wolfgang .opined that He had. Berg” Mr. to earn “predisposed to arrest Nevertheless, valid apparently in fee, large particularly after such his an officer immune warrant does not render vestment of time. if reliance on it is unreason from suit his report raises valid Springer’s think the relevant circumstances. We light able include, the reasonableness of concerning questions but are not Such circumstances Because to, conduct this case. Wolfgang’s that the offi limited other information concluded he has reason the District Court possesses cer or to which unconstitutional, it did access, had not been to make failing and whether able Wolfgang’s qualified immunity process not reach violation. See Daniels Williams, Consequently, claim. it did not make the determine, (1986); fact findings necessary as Upper L.Ed.2d 662 Colburn v. law, Wolfgang’s a matter whether reli- Darby Township, 946 F.2d 1017 Cir. 1991). warrant un- ance on the was unreasonable Whether or not she should have der the circumstances with which he was discrepancies noticed the additional be Therefore, confronted. we will remand tween the information displayed on her the cause so that the can District Court computer appeared screen and what on the necessary sheet, make the can findings, and con- Information the fact remains immunity qualified sider the issue she did not.

first instance. claims, however, Berg that Demko acted with deliberate indifference because she B. Demko any steps failed to take to recall the erro- summary judgment To avoid un neously issued warrant when “in- Gardner analysis, a Fourth Amendment Berg der formed her of August [her mistake] on point must to some evidence from which a Appellant’s 1994.” Br. at 25. The record jury that reasonable could conclude Dem- support Berg’s argument. does not When intentionally ko caused arrest. He his has August Gardner called Demko on he fact, Berg to do so. In failed concedes merely informed her that no warrant for that Demko failed to notice that her com Dep. Banks had been issued. See Gardner name, puter displayed screen his rather (App.372). at 116:9-14 He did not inform Banks’, mistakenly than when she trans an her she had issued erroneous war- complaint the criminal posed number on 3, 1995, rant until approximately January Request Information the Warrant Sheet. days Berg several after had been arrested. (“She Br. Appellant’s at 7 also failed See 603). Appellant’s Br. at 11 (citing App. See all of the note that other information on time, By that it was obviously too late to screen, computer i.e. the her arrestee’s recall the warrant it before was executed. name, birth, his date of his com criminal nothing There is in the indicating record number, security his social plaint number any Demko was aware of her error at arrest, and the reason -for his was also earlier date. She could not have been incorrect.”). Nevertheless, Berg contends deliberately indifferent to a risk of which Demko could be held hable under a Therefore, reasonably she was unaware. theory process due of deliberate indiffer will affirm summary judgment we in favor ence. of Demko. Where a defendant not does inten seized,

tionally plaintiff cause the to be but C. Gardner responsible seizure, nonetheless is for the may process Demko, be that a due points “deliberate Berg to no As indifference” rather than a Fourth Amend record evidence that intentionally Gardner analysis appropriate. ment is County See caused his Though arrest. Gardner initi Lewis, Sacramento v. ultimately U.S. 843- ated the series of events that (1998) 1708, 140 arrest, Berg’s only 118 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 1043 led to his role was to seizure, (holding that if there request played is no warrant for Banks. He by part not covered in issuing case is the Fourth Amend no the erroneous warrant process analysis play any ment and therefore due did he Berg. part Neither may appropriate). be We need not decide of that warrant. Wolfgang’s execution here, short, however, nothing sug because not in this record has is alleged anything negli gesting more than mere that Gardner ever intended to gence part. Negligence by only on Demko’s cause arrest. His intention public officials is not actionable as a due was to cause Banks’ arrest.

By way rough analogy, Gardner’s of serious harm and disregards that risk request analogous stray warrant failing to take reasonable measures Medeiros, Rucker, it.”) in. added). bullets issue abate (emphasis, Where no exist, Landol-Rivera. Gardner “fired” the war reasonable measures neither de- can Banks, rant inadvertently and it liberate Demko, indifference. As with we Berg instead. “struck” This is not the will affirm summary judgment in favor of application intentional of the means of de Gardner. required

tention for a Fourth Amendment Municipal V. Liability seizure. Allegheny County cannot be held however, Again, Berg argues that liable for the unconstitutional acts of its could Gardner be held liable under a due employees a theory respondeat supe process theory of deliberate indifference. rior. See Monell Department Social He displayed contends that Gardner such Servs., 658, 691, indifference when he failed “to act on his (1978). Instead, L.Ed.2d 611 Berg must perhaps ‘hunch’ that warrant erroneous demónstrate that the violation of his rights did, fact, Appellant’s issue.” atBr. 8. It by was caused policy either a or a custom however, is noting, worth that the record of municipality. See Beck v. City any does not establish such “hunch” on of (3d Pittsburgh, Cir.1996). F.3d 89 971 part. Gardner’s Asked at to deposition recall thoughts particular 'his on a day Berg contends he that was arrested as a years more than three in past, Gardner result of Allegheny County’s “flawed war- only was willing to assume that: rant practice” poor creation and training upon way

based I try perform and procedures. noted, As the Integrated my that it job, occurred to me that the System Court Information generates a issued, warrant —there was no warrant warrant based on a single datum —the that the warrant may have in complaint not taken criminal person number of the the computer or that there a possi- to be arrested. Because the user enters bility that a bad warrant information, been is- no other there is no check in sued. computer system guard to against the kind of Demko mistake made. Nor are Dep. (A.407); at 151:16-20 Gardner see procedures that would proba- allow a (A.396). also at id. 140:4-8 tion officer such suspects as Gardner who assuming, Even summary for an error to confirm that suspicion. These judgment purposes, that Gardner did real flaws, maintains, caused his unlawful issued, ize a may bad warrant have his arrest. uncontradicted testimony establishes that he believed there was simply no reason “Policy is made a when ‘deci- way able to investigate suspicion. his sionmaker possessing] final authority to While the term deliberate indifference municipal is establish policy respect to generally require defined to only knowl the action’ proclamation, issues official edge harm, aof serious risk of policy, Tedder, see Fuentes or Kneipp edict.” v. 95 (3d Cir.1996) v. 206 Wagner, F.3d 345 n. 12 F.3d 1212 (quoting Cir.2000) (defining Cincinnati, deliberate indifference Pembaur City v. 475 U.S. of in prisoner’s 469, 481, the context of a Eighth S.Ct. 89 L.Ed.2d 452 claim), (1986) implies (alteration Amendment it also a failure (plurality opinion)) to reasonably take available to original, measures other quotation internal marks “ omitted). reduce or eliminate that risk. Farmer See ‘practices Customs are of state Brennan, 825, 847, v. permanent S.Ct. officials ... and well so settled’ (1994) 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (holding that virtually as to (quot constitute Id. law.” prison “a official may Monell, be held ing 2018) liable under U.S. (other the Eighth ... only omitted). Amendment if he quotation internal marks knows-that inmates face a substantial risk Both Demko and it Gardner made clear County, 520 Bryan of violations. See predicta- tern and an established there is

that 408-09, Although and the U.S. at issuing warrants for procedure ble a claim of failure to maintain possible the method it is claimed that not. County, has pat- demonstrating such a any oth- without from to train case differed used made tern, County Court clear Bryan To aberration. apart from the obvious er— a plaintiff such com- on the answer that the burden contrary, in its Demko County high: conceded plaint, the case is procedures and practices “followed the possibility open in leaving Canton she at the time in effect had been carrying which might succeed plaintiff a Answer, P 8. We be- working.” started showing claim without a failure-to-train inference than reasonable a more violations, lieve we constitutional pattern a responsible system that a suppose that, in a narrow hypothesized simply 6,000 would be the year a issuing warrants circumstances, a violation range or maker’s action product of decision highly may predicta- rights be federal Beck, See, e.g., 89 F.3d acquiescence. law equip a failure to consequence of ble (“written complaints were sufficient specific tools officers with enforcement infer that Chief jury to a reasonable The like- recurring situations. to handle department and Pittsburgh his Police of will and that the situation lihood recur of officer’s have known” knew or should lacking an officer predictability Worden, behavior); Silva violent will to handle situation specific tools Cir.1997) (1st custom (stating F.3d justify could rights violate citizens’ is so showing “practice is demonstrated not policymakers’ decision finding that poli- that the widespread well settled “deliberate train the officer reflected or have either actual cymaking officials consequence to the obvious indifference” it”). Thus, we of knowledge constructive policymakers’choice. of the is sufficient evidence hold that there The Court has 1382. Id. at S.Ct. of policy or custom a procedure was the deliberate indif example of stated County’s. the arming offi an obvious risk is to ference “in the training them consti cers without plaintiff §a identifies Once [of the use the limitations on tutional custom, he must “dem or municipal policy 10, 109 Canton, at 390 n. 489 U.S. arms.]” that, con its deliberate through onstrate S.Ct. ‘moving the duct, municipality was alleged.” Board injury behind the force’ liable County contends County v. Bryan County Comm’rs provide sufficient of failure to its of because of Brown, 520 U.S. against safeguards technical procedural or (1997). here, If, as L.Ed.2d in that resulted as the one such errors facially violate not does policy or custom previously applied arrest. We have law, can be established causation federal in failure-to- ruhngs Supreme Court’s munici “demonstrat[ing] only by liabihty of other claims to train cases indif with ‘deliberate action was taken pal Beck, see, inaction, e.g., 89 F.3d at through conse or obvious as to known ference’ its Borough West Chester 972; v. Williams of even simple or showing A of quences. 458, 467 n. 14 Pennsylvania, 891 F.2d not suffice.” will negligence heightened Cir.1989), as weh. we do so here (citations omit Id. S.Ct. pro- of no evidence record contains The Canton, Ohio ted); City see also of mis- Demko’s against guarding cedures 378, 389, Harris, knowledge considerable Expressing take. (1989). 103 L.Ed.2d 412 Gard- warrant-issuing procedures, of no “double that he knew ner testified screen adequately to Failure were is- warrants ensure that check” to can ordinari municipal employees train or Nor was Gard- name. the correct sued in indifference deliberate ly be considered by which he procedure any ner pat- aware has the failure caused only where if could check ascertain an erroneous in ways rests that have never before Having employed warrant had issued. possible. police, course, The are slip finger where the of a could design entitled to enjoy the substantial advan- in wrongful imprison- result arrest and tages this technology They may confers. ment, not, however, remains an issue of fact on it rely blindly. With County was deliberately whether indif- the benefits of more efficient en- law ferent to an risk. County’s obvious The forcement mechanisms comes the bur- provide protective failure to measures and den of corresponding constitutional re- fail against safes sponsibilities. Demko’s mistake seems to “a comparable equip failure law en- Id. 17-18, (O’Connor, J., 115 S.Ct. 1185 specific forcement officers with tools to concurring). We would add that wide- Bryan recurring handle situations.” spread computerization carries with it the County, 520 U.S. at 117 S.Ct. 1382. ability and responsibility to institute more simple When such a mistake can so obvi- effective safeguards against human error violation, lead to a constitutional ously we than in past. existed municipality cannot hold that the was not The Bryan County Court noted that no deliberately indifferent to the risk as a pattern of violations would be necessary to Accordingly, matter law. County show deliberate indifference where was may be hable under Monell. obvious that a or policy custom would lead We will reverse the District Court’s to constitutional violations. What is obvi- grant summary judgment County to the ous the field of technology is determined so that a fact finder may address these under an evolving case, standard. In this questions.7 Allegheny County may have been liable for Raymond Berg’s through deliberate

VI. Future Violations indifference danger obvious of such It is clear we age have entered an an arrest. Whether or not Allegheny which law enforcement personnel rely will County is ultimately found to have been increasingly computer technology. Dis- deliberately case, indifferent this this Evans, senting Arizona v. Justice Gins- tragedy will again never be novel. Alle- noted, burg gheny County is on notice of ICIS’s short-

Widespread comings computers reliance on and one of dangers to least the convey compartmentalized and generates, using computer store information sys- along benefits, with manifold tems possi- new without viable fail safes. error, bilities of to computer due both VII. Conclusions operator and

malfunctions mistakes.... [Computerization greatly amplifies an For the reasons the given, judgment of effect, error’s and correspondingly in- the District Court will be affirmed as to correction; tensifies the need for prompt Defendants and Gardner Demko and re- for inaccurate data only can infect not versed as to Wolfgang Defendants and agency, one but many agencies the that Allegheny County. We will remand for share access to the database. further proceedings consistent with this 514 U.S. at opinion. 1185 (Ginsburg,

J., dissenting). Similarly, Justice O’Con- MANSMANN, Judge, Circuit emphasized, nor part in concurring dissenting part. and In years, recent we have witnessed the powerful, computer-based advent I respectfully concur in all parts of the recordkeeping systems that facilitate ar- opinion IV, court’s Part IV. In Part except 7. Demko and Gardner intended to arrest Berg. County was Thus intentionally the But County Banks. the intended that the Berg through seized intentionally means it individuals identified warrant-issuing applied. case, system be person arrested. In this real- that she expressly stated ko had not defendants respect to only with I differ - war- erroneous of an possibility ized the Gardner, majority which the and

Demko rant, may predicated be disregard reckless C, respective- subparts B and addresses un- from which knowledge of facts on of the portion this reverse I ly. would violation a constitutional risk of reasonable and summary judgment Court’s District jury could find Surely a inferred. may be view, because, re- my remand to information had that Demko sufficient as to material fact issue of genuine mains generat- probably had that determine she of these defendants. each for else. a warrant someone ed conclusion court’s with the I issue take rea- all summary judgment stage, theAt to cause not intend Demko did in favor that must be drawn inferences sonable First, party. of mind See Internation- non-moving state Demko’s seizure. Co., 188 F.3d Engine al Union v. Skinner is not the warrant processed time she Cir.1999) (3d Peters (citing Demko’s statement record. on this clear Auth., 16 F.3d River Delaware Port. Bank, looked sorry, I’m and “Berg that Cir.1994)). reason- It would be in two me,” read could be to very close deposition tes- Demko’s to infer from able could have meant ways. She different had Berg’s name timony knew that she to the so similar “Berg” looked the name while the computer screen up on come did not notice that she name “Banks” Similarly, Banks. was for request warrant screen. Alterna- was on the wrong name infer that as reasonable to be would she knew meant that could have tively, she had that an error Demko knew April rath- appeared on screen Berg’s name nothing try to to yet did made and Banks’, the error but than assumed er it, might be someone though correct computer request, not the warrant imprisoned.. wrongfully words, could Demko other In system. Gardner, my dis- to the defendant As intended have concluded Gardner from majority stems with the agreement inad- Berg, but a warrant request he re- actions after interpreting Gardner’s in- Banks’ name vertently wrote down requested he had alized that warrant Thus, mind re- state of Demko’s stead. appar- issued. He had not been for Banks jury question. mains a halt try any effort ently did not make that a surmise though he could the error addition, if we assume even for someone generated had been warrant be- discrepancies not did notice Demko Banks, might than and someone other on the displayed tween the information arrested. wrongfully be the informa- appeared what screen notes, summary majority As typed in the she at the time tion sheet may we purposes assume judgment error, her data, the aftermath in war- that an erroneous realized Gardner indif- deliberate may display well actions majority The is have issued. may rant 16, Gardner informed April On ference. however, satisfied, “that he believed had the information sheet Demko way to investi- simply no reasonable any there was not but processed, Farmer, 511 suspicion.” Under gate his merely generated Banks. for She warrant might Gardner U.S. at any effort iden- did not make one. She if he indifference deliberate exhibited have or to re- warrant prior incorrect tify the measures to take reasonable failed it, could surmise though she trieve harm. risk of serious a substantial abate improperly generated had been warrant into mistakenly, being thrown done When ar- wrongfully be might liberty and that someone is seri- deprived of one’s prison and Dem- finds that Though Thus, the court the reasonableness rested. harm. ous risk, light in to Gardner reasonably available unaware measures ko was jury is a circumstances of the relevant Although Dem- jury question. too is a this question. the risk harm Where is as case, it

weighty greater as this mea- might required

sures well be to avoid it. example, jury plausibly

For could find

that once realized thought Gardner or occurred, might

a mistake have he should made even painstaking

have the most at- if

tempts possi- to uncover the error and

ble, identity discover the individual

in whose name the warrant erroneous I disagree

been issued. thus with the

majority’s conclusion that Gardner neither

played part in issuing the erroneous Berg play any part

warrant for nor did he Wolfgang’s warrant. contrary, On the

Gardner was “involved” the issuance of

the warrant and in Berg’s subsequent ar- He request

rest. initiated the that result- warrant, super-

ed the erroneous and as responsible

visor of the agency, chose not

to correct the error. Because is feasi-

ble, if likely, jury not most that a would

hold Demko Gardner accountable to and/or wrongful imprisonment, for his I summary

would reverse judgment and

Demko Gardner and remand the case

for trial. CAMP, Appellant,

Ronald BRENNAN, Superintendent;

Edward

Brooks, Deputy Superintendent;

Marquart, Deputy Superintendent; Thompson, Sr.; Clark, Guard;

John

Walmsley, Guard; Burton, Guard;

Byerley, Guard; Jones, Guard;

John Does. Suwak, Peter M. (argued), Washington,

No. 99-3887. PA, Attorneys Appellant. United States Court Appeals, Third Circuit. Fisher, General, D. Michael Attorney Argued May 2000. Koons, Calvin R. Deputy Attorney Senior Filed July General, III, (argued), Knorr, John G. Chief, Deputy Attorney

Chief Ap- General Section, PA, pellate Litigation Harrisburg, Attorneys Appellees.

Case Details

Case Name: Berg v. County of Allegheny

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Date Published: Jul 17, 2000

Citation: 219 F.3d 261

Docket Number: 98-3557

Court Abbreviation: 3rd Cir.