*1 al., RODRIGUEZ, et Manuela
Plaintiffs, Appellants, America, STATES
UNITED Appellee.
Defendant, 94-1369.
No. Appeals, Court Circuit.
First 3, 1994.
Heard Oct. May
Decided Rehearing Suggestion
Rehearing and 17, 1995. July Banc
En Denied Gonzalez-Munoz, whom Rafael Juan PR, Office, Rey, Hato Law Munoz
Gonzalez & and Moreda Pavia-Cabanillas Gerardo brief, for PR, Juan, Moreda, were San appellants. Gil, U.S. Maier, Atty., R. Guillermo Peter Atty., Hunger, Asst. U.S.
Atty., Frank W. Greenspan, DC, S. and Robert Washington, brief, appellee. Hull, MA, Atty., TORRUELLA,* Judge, Before Chief CYR, Judge, and BOWNES, Circuit Senior Judge. Circuit opinion * opinion. The panel issuance argument this Judge heard oral Tomiella Chief 46(d). 28 U.S.C. issued drafting therefore matter, participate in the but did not *2 CYR, Judge. Circuit Deputy Rodriguez promptly dispatched an packet” “arrest to the United States Mar- Rodríguez —Manuela Service, shals District of Puerto Rico family challenge sum- members — (“DPR”), copies which included of the 1975 mary judgment entered in the United States booking DEA form and a handwritten infor- District Court for the District of Puerto Rico prepared by mation form the United States dismissing their Federal Tort Claims Act Service, Marshals SDNY. (“FTCA”) damages resulting suit for from guez requested the United States Marshals imprisonment the errant arrest and of Man- Service, DPR, following to “check the lead.” Rodríguez by uela the United States Mar- Her cover memorandum summarized most of shals Service to a valid warrant. identifying accompany- information in the affirm judgment. We the district court ing documents and following included the Lopez, additional information: Dora a/k/a Dora; Restrepo, Restrepo, I weight: 140 a/k/a (back 1975); Rodríguez. sister: Martha BACKGROUND1 though Deputy Even Rodriguez, just five earlier, days a photograph shown 14, 1975, Mineóla, York, On March New 1975 arrestee in the City neigh- New York an individual who identified herself as “Man- Rodríguez” borhood where “Manuela Rodríguez” drug uela was arrested on resided, last believed to have her cover mem- charges by Drug the United States Enforce- “photo orandum noted: not available.” Nor (“DEA”). ment Administration The arrestee Deputy Rodriguez request did fingerprints provided security DEA with a social number packet. for inclusion in the arrest following and the additional agents Shortly which the packet recorded on a after standard the arrest reached female; 5'; DEA booking January 26, 1990, form: Puerto height: sex: Rico on deputy case, weight: pounds; white; assigned place race: marshals César Torres [sic], Diaz, Maranjito Rico; Eugenio birth: requested date the United 29,1942; Service, SDNY, birth: December citizenship: Marshals Unit- forward a States; identifying photograph subject. ed scar characteristics: record is stomach, right-handed; brown; silent as to eyes: fingerprints were re- brown; deceased; quested. event, hair: In Deputies mother: de- Torres and father: ceased; Rodriques. again sister: Diaz once April photo- Martha were advised that On no 7, 1975, graph United States District available and that Court for SDNY could provide the Southern District of New York issued an additional information. against arrest warrant Rodríguez,” “Manuela 8,1990, February On confirming after directed to the DEA for execution. The Rodríguez a Manuela residing indeed was DEA subject. never located the Bayamón address listed in the arrest packet, Deputies Torres and Diaz alerted a the United States Marshals Ser- magistrate judge that an arrest was immi- responsible vice became executing for DEA afternoon, nent. Later in Tor- warrants, Marshal Sandra proceeded res and Diaz Bayamón ad- Rodriguez (“Deputy Rodriguez”), Southern dress to execute the arrest (“SDNY”), District of New York was as- identified themselves to plaintiff-appellant signed subject to locate the of the 1975 arrest Pedro (“Martinez”), Gonzalez plain- Martinez later, warrant. Sometime a credit bureau tiff husband. phoned Martinez by Deputy yielded check a fresh plaintiff Rodriguez place work, at her lead: a Rodríguez” residing “Manuela approximately she arrived home at p.m. 4:50 Bayamón, Rico, with the identical so- security cial number insistence, recorded At her interviewed DEA booking form. plaintiff Rodriguez presence of her Co., The relevant facts are (1st recited in the most v. SMA Assur. mez Life plaintiffs-appellants, against favorable to Cir.1993). whom summary judgment was entered. See Velez-Go way clearing the by plaintiffs-appellants, filed informa- most family. confirmed She including present packet, tion imprison- number, and false false arrest security birth- name, social her full depu- of its scar, solely the conduct right-hand- ment based birthdate, abdominal place, *3 (1) Deputy initiating, through de- parents ty were both her marshals edness, and that arrest, also detention plaintiff wrongful arrest and the Rodriguez, her to Prior ceased. a to the 1975 pursuant that she Rodriguez plaintiff marshals deputy told the Although Rodriguez.” obtaining or forward- without named “Marta arrest warrant sister that reveals judgment record of the summary fingerprints and ing photograph the a (2) siblings, includ- Rico; three Rodríguez has of Puerto plaintiff the District arrestee to “Marta,” warrant, Depu- “Maria” through named ing a sister and/or executing the arrest to in opposition grounds asserted only Diaz, photograph a the without Torres and ties alleged were the judgment below summary subject and notwith- of the fingerprints and difference, twenty-pound a height differences height weight and standing the plain- on difference, scar additional weight 1975 ar- Rodríguez the and plaintiff between the forehead, the failure Rodriguez’s tiff (3) delaying plaintiff restee; and SDNY, Service, to Marshals States judge.2 magistrate a before appearance initial to fingerprints and photograph a forward summary moved for United States The Tor- Deputies Rico, failure of the and district court all The judgment on claims. fingerprints. request Diaz to res and tri- a generated had not plaintiffs ruled that advised and Diaz Torres When arresting the dispute as to whether alworthy for “Manue- arrest warrant they had an that believing a basis deputies had reasonable no protested plaintiff Rodríguez,” la —to subject Rodriguez was plaintiff that be the individual not she could avail—that It con- arrest warrant. the 1975 named in never she had since in the named warrant valid deputies, with that cluded Immediately after to New York. been duty to hand, under no warrant attempted —likewise identification their reasonable corroborate judge, then magistrate a contact no avail —to aor fifteen- fingerprints obtaining either a transported her plaintiff booked on failure and that photograph year-old facility incarceration detention pretrial gather Deputy part of or- commitment provisional to the be- was immaterial information forward such magistrate by the issued previously der Dep- available made cause the 9, plain- February following day, The judge. arrest was prior and Diaz uties Torres judge magistrate brought before a tiff was belief a reasonable support adequate to pend- recognizance personal on and released plaintiff Rodri- arresting deputies February 1990. hearing on ing a removal war- the 1975 named in was the guez hearing, the removal anticipation rant. photograph requested a again challenge from the United the district arrestee (1) Finally, on Feb- Service, Depu- grounds: SDNY. rulings, Marshals on two court at the Mineóla photo- photograph Diaz, taken ruary neither Torres ties time Department the 1975 arres- fingerprints Police graph nor the Rico. When to Puerto be- mailed arrest was a reasonable formed tee, not have could 12, it was February subject arrived photograph Rodriguez was lief that readily light of determined particularly (2) arrested Rodríguez” the “Manuela was not discrepancies; weight February On failed Rodriguez negligently proceedings all dismiss moved to fingerprints.of photograph include a Rodriguez. packet transmit- in the arrest 1975 arrestee Service, Marshals United States ted Marshals In due course DPR. claim the administrative disallowed Service appeal. claim pursued the latter Appellants have The responds United States Thus, in kind. officers.” Id. the United States is
First,
it claims that Deputies Torres and
liable—“in the same manner and to the same
Diaz had reasonable cause to believe that
extent” —for a
false arrest of
plaintiff Rodriguez
arrestee;
was the
guez,
private
“as
individual” would
hence,
they
Second,
negligent.
were not
“like circumstances”
applicable
assuming
even
part
conduct on the
state law.
pre-arrest
inves-
Applicable
tigation,
C.
federal law enforcement
Substantive Law
officers owe
duty
to exercise reasonable
in con-
care
FTCA ordains that
the “law of
ducting pre-arrest
and,
investigations
sec-
place”
where the act or omission oc
2680(h)
ondly,
sovereign
FTCA
waives
im-
*4
govern
curred shall
damages
actions for
munity from suit for certain
in-
enumerated
the United States.
28 U.S.C.
only among
tentional torts
them false ar-
—
1346(b).
§
Its reference to the “law of the
imprisonment
rest and false
not for
—and
place” encompasses
principles.
choice-of-law
mere
investigation.
See Richards v.
1,
369 U.S.
11-13,
585, 591-93,
S.Ct.
82
II (1962); In re All Maine Litigation, Asbestos (1st 1023, Cir.1985), 772 F.2d 1029 cert. de DISCUSSION nied, 1126, 1994, 476 U.S. 106 S.Ct. 90 Summary Judgment A. (1986). L.Ed.2d 675 As all material acts and by Deputy omissions grant Rodriguez place A took summary judgment is sub York, New ject we plenary would look to to New York review under law the same crite for the rule applicable of decision ria incumbent on the to her district court. Guz actions. New York Rivera-Gruz, 3, man-Rivera v. choice-of-law 29 F.3d 4 (1st provide Cir.1994). Summary conduct-regulating judgment causes of ac appro is normally tion governed priate record, by are where the law the viewed in the place where an injury most actionable party conducive is resisting sustained. sum Am., See mary Boy Inc., Schultz v. judgment, Scouts reveals trialworthy 65 issue 189, fact, 90, 95, N.Y.2d 491 of material N.Y.S.2d party 480 requesting N.E.2d 679, (1985). 684 judgment entitled to as a matter law. Id. Any injury Rodriguez was sus- tained Moreover, in Puerto Rico. par- Sovereign Immunity B. ties, court, as well as the district assumed from start governs Puerto Rico law many years For general waiver predicated actionable claim on alleged sovereign immunity by afforded FTCA acts and omissions of permitted 2674 tort brought actions to be circumstances, New York. In these we do against the United “in the same man likewise, see Commercial Ins. Union Co. v. ner and to the extent same as [against] a Co., Ltd., 1047, Walbrook Ins. 1048 private n. circumstances,” individual under like (1st Cir.1993), 1 since law bears 28 except U.S.C. for such so-called a “reasonable relation” to all claims in litiga- assault, “intentional torts” as battery, false Finally, tion. since the false arrest and imprisonment, false arrest, false prose malicious imprisonment claims under Puerto cution, Rico law libel, abuse of process, slander, mis raise no relevant present distinction representation, deceit, and interference with context, we treat them as identical causes of rights, 2680(h). contract Then, 28 U.S.C. Ayala action. v. San Racing Corp., Juan Congress narrowed Cf. “intentional (1982). 112 P.R. Dec. exception torts” so as to enable actions against the United States based on six state- D. The Relating False Arrest Claims assault, battery, imprison false torts — Deputy Marshals Torres and Diaz ment, false process abuse of and mali cious prosecution arising from acts or omis Plaintiff contends that — sions of “investigative its or law subjected Torres her to false arrest Restatement, Cir.1968) (1st (citing 880, 883 cer- despite warrant executing the Supreme Court Torts, where physical de- between discrepancies tain on common of reliance pattern and the demonstrated 1975 arrestee by the given scription the Restatement adopt authority), we data biographical description physical 112-36, 35-45A, as the Torts, §§ (Second) arresting analysis of sufficient, framework appropriate discrepancies These officers. claim. false arrest doubt instant a reasonable engender argues, she have re- should Privilege finger- Conditional obtaining photograph solved Their failure arrestee. prints con arrest an Generally speaking, summary judg- precluded so therefore do is condi warrant to a valid ducted issue central arrest^ ment liabili false and no tionally privileged, a reasonable have harbored could ing officers Re responsible. officers against the ty lies person named belief Torts, §§ (Second) statement warrant. agent’s Moreover, (1965). distinct comprise a cases be principal’s his Misidentification “properly exercised par- claims, for which a defense has half,” likewise principal subset *5 fash- agent. standards of rules conduct ticularized on action based (Sec- 217(a)(iii) Restatement law. See (Second) Agency, common ioned Restatement of (1965). though Even Torts, con ond) attaching § 125 to the (1958).3 privilege The of way into their found acting have within claims many employee such government of a duct B. William see years, has likewise employment courts over scope of his or Im- Arrest False Johnson, Liability to the a defense available as recognized for been Warrant so- on the Under based prisonment actions Affected in States United Arrested, 39 Identity Person in FTCA as to torts enumerated Mistake intentional of called g has (1985), research careful See, v. United 705 2680(h). e.g., A.L.R.4th Arnsber Supreme Cir.1985) (9th Rico reported Puerto 971, States, 978-79 disclosed F.2d 757 arrest' a false addressing arrest liability decision Court (government valid arrest of a ac privilege the execution of based in claim FTCA determined arrest), wrong person. effecting officer warrant law corded 1010, 106 S.Ct. denied, 475 U.S. rt. however, matter, ce general aAs (1986); v. Unit Caban 300 1183, 89 L.Ed.2d its limit conformed has Supreme Court Rico Cir.1984) (2d 68, 74 F.2d 728 ed to common jurisprudence arrest” “false ed is entitled Thus, (same). United P.R. 112 See, Ayala, e.g., principles. law conditional a defense in its sources, assert in law (citing common at 813 Dec. local by applicable agent upon its Torts); conferred (Second) Restatement cluding of same manner same in the Hosp., 87 Rey Psychiatric v. Hato Dobbins could principal nongovernmental as a extent (1962) (citing common law 28, 31-32 P.R.R. legisla The circumstances. (1938)). in similar assert Restatement, Torts sources, including amend 1974 accompanying history tive longstand our Accordingly, consistent “to intended Congress that makes clear ment eases in ing practice in liable independently the Government make common from diverged not has court that type of conduct the same damages for Ctr., Newell v. Inc. Importers see principles, (and in Bivens occurred Cir.1985) alleged (1st 17, 20 Inc., Cos., F.2d 758 liability upon imposes case (Second) Con to Restatement (looking involved). Government individual controlling Puerto officials (1979), absent tracts 3 2d Cong., Sess. 588, 93d S.Rep. No. Marshall, F.2d See v. law); Agent Principal has Where Section he privilege which (iii) agent Privilege Immunity or be- principal’s his exercised properly on the principal based against a In an employ- course ... half. servant conduct 217(a)(iii). Agency, (Second) ment: Restatement if: (a) principal defense has (1973), reprinted in 1974 U.S.C.C.A.N. tion in contained packet, arrest (emphasis added); see also ample Bivens basis for Deputies Torres and Diaz to Six Agents Unknown Named Fed. Bureau form an objectively reasonable belief that Narcotics, 403 U.S. S.Ct. person was the in named (1971). L.Ed.2d Indeed, the warrant. the information plain- tiff herself provided response questions Although undisputed from the deputies comported in virtually ev- was arrested to a valid ery detail physical with the description in the warrant, the conditional privilege packet, except for a discrep- would not insulate officers from ancy and a twenty-pound difference liability unless the arrestee was weight.4 (a) person ... a sufficiently named or otherwise described in the warrant and agree We that these reasonably [was] believed the [officer] slight discrepancies variations be- —minor be, the person intended, or plaintiffs tween the physical description and (b) although not person, such ... know- the fifteen-year-old DEA booking form de- ingly caused aetor[s] to believe [her] scription not have undermined the ob- —could be so. jective reasonableness the arresting depu- (Second) Restatement Torts, (em- § 125 ties’ belief was the added). phasis Since the plainly record named in re- the 1975 Furthermore, warrant. flects apparently maintained mindful of the risks inherent throughout that she was executing a fifteen-year-old warrant, named only Deputies we need Torres and prudently attempt- inquire pursuant 125(a)— to subsection ed to obtain information, further — as well as a *6 (1) she was “sufficiently photograph, named or from the United States Mar- otherwise (2) described in the Service, SDNY, warrant” shals but were told that no Deputies Torres and photo Diaz “reasonably or be- additional information was available. lieved” that person she was Indeed, “the intended” in the arresting deputies even afforded 125(a). the warrant. See id. § Rodriguez an opportunity to explain anyone how other than she could pro- foremost, First and there can be no vided the DEA with all this information in question that person arrested was “suffi 1975. Plaintiff Rodriguez was unable to ex- ciently named” in the 1975 warrant, arrest plain then and no explanation offers now. 125(a), § see id. which directed the person same name as Their painstaking efforts could have left Rodríguez. A law enforcement officer “is Deputies Torres and Diaz with little in- privileged to person arrest the to whom the kling alone a reasmable —let belief—that [in name applies warrant] complete plaintiff Rodriguez was not the “Manuela accuracy, although may the [officer] have Rodríguez” named in the arrest warrant. reason to suspect that a mistake has been Thus, notwithstanding their errant made, and person, though accurately person, innocent the arresting officers— named, not intended.” Id. having every utilized available pre- means to § added). 125 cmt. f (emphasis clude misidentification —were left with no The United argues States that the grounds in name for forming a reasonable belief that the 1975 together with the informa- Rodriguez was not the in- arresting deputies The confirmed that The (in- record is silent anyone as to whether Rodriguez's birthplace, birthdate, abdominal cluding plaintiff) noted the dis- scarring, right-handedness, race, citizenship, crepancy at the time of twenty- arrest. The Security Social number were all identical to the pound weight difference reasonably was attrib- data contained packet. in the arrest Plaintiff by uted to the fact that almost fifteen even confirmed that her sister had the same years passed since the arrest of "Manuela as name that which the 1975 given arrestee had Rodríguez" Mineóla, New York. for her Finally, sister. plaintiff informed Depu- that, ties Torres Diaz arrestee, like the 1975 parents both her were deceased as well.
47 prosecution”). and malicious imprisonment warrant. Conse- tended specu- the invitation decline therefore ar- We 1975 the valid the execution quently, Court Supreme late Torres by rest warrant a claim. to such receptive would And, lastly, the United privileged. rely on entitled Arrest Instigation of False mar- deputy attached liability for cite Sami Plaintiffs-appellants complete defense shals as (D.C.Cir.1979), by States, Restatement arrest, as false United 217(a)(iii). Unit § (Second) Agency, their contention support conduct for the may be sued ed States Deputy Relating initiating the errant Rodríguez Claims E. The 2680(h) FTCA held that guez arrest. Sami false arrest to suit for opens the contend further officer was law enforcement though its even “negligent for the is liable en in “frontline law directly involved proceed- of arrest initiation investigation and 764; but id. at See work.” forcement cf. Rodríguez. ings” States, F.2d v. United Pooler that federal States counters sovereign im Cir.) (3d (restricting waiver duty exercise reason- legal owe officers 2680(h) FTCA under munity effected investiga- conducting pre-arrest care able or en by investigative torts enumerated that FTCA argues Additionally, it tions. search, of a “in the course forcement officers immunity from 2680(h) sovereign waives denied, arrest”), cert. or an a seizure torts intentional six enumerated suit for L.Ed.2d 107 S.Ct. U.S. imprisonment, false battery, only assault,— question (1986). not resolve We need malicious process abuse Sami, however, con since we addressed Thus, according to the United prosecution. lie action right of would clude that no right of afforded if local law even by the likely applied to be legal initi- investigation and based Supreme Court sovereign immu- barred it would be ation Rodriguez. conduct nity. participates instigates who One *7 subject to another Investigation unlawful confinement Negligent Re arrest. for false other liability the authority to no point Torts, § 45A. “Insti (Second) statement “negli- for action right of recognizes a which or acts “words as is defined gation” circumstances, in these investigation” gent encourage false the or direct, invite request, impos- authority for found have we nor “In the e. § emt. 45A Id. itself.” [arrest] sovereign the liability on ing equiva is the arrest, [instigation] anof case courts several investigation, whereas ‘Officer, arrest conduct, of lent, in words See, v. e.g., Smith claims. rejected such ” by means Though it is Id. man!’ that 1982); (Iowa 299, State, 324 N.W.2d request Deputy that clear 474, Tucson, 171 Ariz. City v. Landeros 3, p. lead,” supra see following “check 850, (App.Ct.1992); Wimer 475, 831 P.2d as defined “instigation” amounted 453, 925, 923, P.2d State, 122 Idaho v. Deputy Restatement, whether we consider v. Bernard (App.Ct.1992); cf. insti be liable would herself Cir.1994) (2d New (applying 98, 102 plaintiff a false gating rejecting claim and in FTCA York law circumstances. these exer- failed to officers that underly like Instigation of arrest); effecting Boose care in due cise the conditional itself, subject ing tort N.Y.S.2d Rochester, 71 A.D.2d City of effected arrests accorded “may privilege (1979) (ruling that 740, 744 b. Con § cmt. 45A Id. warrant. to valid principles general broad recover conduct sequently, way of by proceed ... but must negligence long arrestee so privileged be would of false remedies traditional “sufficiently was named or gent otherwise instigation claim, de- conditionally would be scribed in the warrant” and the officer insti- privileged, (Second) see Restatement gating the arrest “reasonably believed” that Torts, 125(a), § and the United States would plaintiff Rodriguez person was “the intend- be entitled to assert in its own ed” in the arrest 125(a); warrant. Id. see supra 11-15; defense. pp. See Restatement id. 45A cmt. b. (Second) 217(a)(iii).5 Agency, § above, As noted supra p. see there is no question but that Rodriguez was Ill “sufficiently named” in the 1975 warrant. CONCLUSION
Nor developed did evidence summary judgment generate a trialworthy dispute as challenged As the of all Dep- conduct three Rodriguez “reasonably uty United States privileged, Marshals was believed” identified in the summary judgment properly entered for packet she forwarded to Puerto Rico the United States. was the by intended the 1975 arrest parties Affirmed. The shall bear their warrant. See Moreover, id. 125 cmt f. own costs. plaintiffs-appellants have suggested, never either below or appeal, opportu- that their BOWNES, Judge, Senior Circuit nity to conduct discovery inadequate. concurring judgment. The record evidence reflects agree I judgment mainly because Rodriguez matched the name social secu- there was improbably close match be- rity fugitive number of the with the name tween the provided information plain- security and social number of an individual tiff and the detailed information in the arrest residing in Puerto Rico. packet The arrest packet. Given this level of specificity and Deputy Rodriguez forwarded to Puerto Rico similarity, I must that it conclude would be included personal extensive family infor- entirely unreasonable for a finder-of-faet to provided by mation Rodríguez” “Manuela posit liability against government. It arrested which matched almost pre- was not the which was culpable cisely personal family but the impostor who framed gathered Rodriguez in 1990. years some fifteen before arrest. There were two discrepancies minor between provided the information by the 1975 arres- I write separately, however, emphasize tee plaintiff Rodriguez: Restatement underlying twenty- difference and a our decision should not applied mechani- pound weight difference. But there is no cally multiple government are actors record evidence whatsoever to suggest that engaged in collective my view, action. *8 Deputy Rodriguez was even aware these would be a mistake to treat the New York discrepancies. and Puerto Rico piecemeal, marshals as iso- Thus, the lated actors Depu- rather than co-agents forwarded of a ty Rodriguez, when matched principal. with common the infor- right Under the circum- relating mation stances, herself, co-agents may duty have a to ex- ample afforded change basis for forming objec- information; certain there tively reasonable belief duty, such a the reasonableness of a given guez named in the ar- act —and principal’s liability for that rest warrant. Consequently, Deputy Rodri- judged act—should be light of what the guez’s conduct relating to the errant actor knew known, or should assuming have assuming even it were negli- as a actionable the reasonable conduct of other concerned Nevertheless, given many cautions, uncontrolled lawall enforcement officers—whether ramps leading onto and off the directly "information in effecting involved simply an arrest or highway,” Judge clearly Bownes' wise counsel gathering and forwarding information for use agencies offers best means officers—should exercise the avoiding insufficiently recurrences high ex- degree of care commensurate with the seri- plained wrong my done in this case. As brother ousness of their mission. knowledge imputed concept of This actors. America, Appellee, vicarious STATES agency and UNITED with consistent seems liability principles. can approach piecemeal failings of VOGEL, Defendant- Thomas James A this ease. facts of using the
be illustrated Appellant. little may mean of information piece 94-1411. No. Docket it, but who holds abstract in context. actor another might decisive be Appeals, Court of United States inert ease, photograph remained In this Circuit. Second file; for- it been 28, 1995. Feb. marshals Submitted Puerto warded plaintiffs field, prevented it would have April Decided my brother agree I Although arrest. of the informa- specificity that, packet, her
tion in wrong person that the to fear reason
had no arrested, opinion nevertheless
might be regrettable one government’s
obscures all, Rico mar- the Puerto After
omission. request photograph; fit to saw shals why it explained has never timely sent. either that common
I doubt or foreclose approach, piecemeal
dictate action. of collective integrated view
more momentarily opinion Indeed, my brother’s rejects the view when integrated
adopts an Deputy Rodriguez. claim
instigation (“The packet at 46
See ante ... Rodriguez forwarded personal precisely the almost
matched Rod- gathered
family information 1990.”). mat- correspondence This
riguez in imputed only Deputy if
ters that was knowledge of information Rico marshals. solely by the
gathered the bulk sum, quarrel with I merely I scholarly opinion.
my brother’s against judg- caution raise a word
wish to principal as isolat- common
ing co-agents of a assessed actors; actions should their
ed *9 piece.
as of one NY, Rossetti, Albany, for defen-
Femande dant-appellant. (Thomas J. Yanthis, NY Albany,
George A. N.D.N.Y., of Atty. for the Maroney, U.S. counsel), appellee.