BAYLSON, District Judge.
On November 9, 2012, Plaintiff Robert Gorman, a police officer for the City of Chester, Pennsylvania ("Chester"), filed his Second Amended Complaint (ECF 22) asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 — for violations of his First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights — and state law — for false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and invasion of privacy — arising out of an alleged conspiracy among Chester's Mayor, Wendell Butler, and certain of his superiors in Chester's Police Department — Major Joseph Bail; former Chief Floyd Lewis III; and current Chief Darren Alston, who was also a major at relevant times — to have Plaintiff arrested and terminated from the police department. Plaintiff also named Chester as a defendant. On November 21, 2012, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (the "Motion") (ECF 25). Plaintiff Responded (ECF 28) on December 19, 2012.
For the reasons below, Defendants' Motion will be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Plaintiff filed his original Complaint on October 11, 2011. On December 8, 2011, Defendants' filed a Motion to Dismiss the original Complaint (ECF 5). On December 22, 2011, Plaintiff requested additional time to respond to that motion or, in the alternative, file an amended complaint (ECF 6). The Court granted leave to amend (ECF 7) on December 23, 2011. On December 28, 2011, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (ECF 8). On January 10, 2012, Defendants moved for partial dismissal of the First Amended Complaint (ECF 9). On May 9, 2012, the Court issued a Memorandum, 2012 WL 1646009, and Order, 2012 WL 1648399 (ECF 13-14) granting the motion in part and denying it in part, and permitting Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff then filed a motion for discovery in aid of filing his second amended complaint (ECF 15), which the Court granted (ECF 17) on May 30, 2012. Plaintiff then filed his Second Amended Complaint.
On October 11, 2008, Plaintiff, while off-duty, had an altercation with Marvin J. Fowler at a restaurant known as Crown Chicken (the "Crown Chicken Incident"). Fowler was intoxicated and accosted Plaintiff. Plaintiff told Fowler to leave him
During the altercation, the proprietor of Crown Chicken activated an alarm, and an on-duty Chester police officer came to the restaurant. Plaintiff gave a report of the incident to the responding officer. Fowler subsequently initiated a citizen's complaint against Plaintiff. Thomas Worrilow investigated the complaint for the Delaware County Criminal Investigation Division.
Fowler's complaint and Worrilow's investigation were reviewed by the Delaware County District Attorney's Office, and Plaintiff was not charged with any crime. The Chester Police Department took no action against Plaintiff at that time.
Fowler then initiated a private criminal complaint against Plaintiff. The complaint was scheduled for a hearing, but it was dismissed after Fowler failed to show up and Plaintiff testified on his own behalf.
Defendants then commenced an extended conspiracy to have Plaintiff arrested and terminated from the Chester Police Department because of the Crown Chicken Incident. Sometime in early January 2009,
Defendants took no further action regarding Plaintiff until sometime after August 2009. (Id. ¶¶ 20-24.) On or about August 29, 2009, the Chester Fire Commissioner relayed information to Bail that led him to believe that Fowler had been
Warrilow did not begin his re-investigation until approximately January 12, 2010, and it lasted until approximately November 4, 2010. In mid to late January 2010, Warrilow interviewed the Fire Commissioner, Fowler, and Fowler's wife. The Fire Commissioner told Warrilow that he had "overheard a conversation between two males" about one of them having been approached by a Chester police officer and offered $2000. The Commissioner also stated that neither Plaintiff's nor Fowler's name had been used during the conversation, and that he did not know Fowler by sight. (Id. ¶ 26.) Fowler's wife told Worrilow that Fowler had not shown up for the hearing because of an outstanding probation violation. Fowler said he failed to appear at the hearing because his bus was delayed, and when he arrived, he was told his complaint had already been dismissed. Worrilow's re-investigation also "revealed that other people present" at the Crown Chicken Incident "had not seen [Plaintiff] strike Fowler." (Id. ¶ 29.)
On November 4, 2010, at the conclusion of Warrilow's re-investigation, Bail procured an arrest warrant for Plaintiff. In his affidavit of probable cause, Bail stated that Plaintiff "pulled a gun from his waist band, struck Fowler with it several times, caused a cut and lump over Fowler's eye, and physically pushed Fowler out of [Crown Chicken]." (Id. ¶ 31.) Bail did not disclose in his affidavit that:
On November 11, 2010, after obtaining the warrant, Bail arrested Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 34.) Butler, Lewis, and Alston knew about the arrest warrant, but did not review or otherwise verify its validity and did nothing to stop the arrest. (Id. ¶¶ 32-33.)
On November 13, 2010, because of his arrest, Plaintiff was suspended from the police force without pay. (Id. ¶ 35.) Plaintiff was not given any opportunity to be heard prior to his suspension. (Id.) Pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement, Plaintiff requested a hearing before the Chester City Council, but Butler, Alston, and Lewis denied his request, and caused the hearing to be held before the Chester Civil Service Commission, which Butler controlled. The Commission terminated Plaintiff on December 16, 2010.
On or about July 7, 2011, Plaintiff was tried for the criminal charges arising out the Crown Chicken Incident. (Id. ¶ 41.) He was found not guilty. (Id.) Plaintiff testified on his own behalf at the trial. (Id.)
In deciding a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), courts may look only to the facts alleged in the complaint and its attachments. Jordan v. Fox, Rothschild, O'Brien & Frankel, 20 F.3d 1250, 1261 (3d Cir.1994). Courts must accept as true all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Angelastro v. Prudential-Bache Sec., Inc., 764 F.2d 939, 944 (3d Cir.1985).
A valid complaint requires only "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). "To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to `state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). Iqbal clarified that the Court's decision in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007), which required a heightened degree of fact pleading in an antitrust case, "expounded the pleading standard for `all civil actions.'" 556 U.S. at 684, 129 S.Ct. 1937.
Iqbal explained that although a court must accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in a complaint, that requirement does not apply to legal conclusions; therefore, pleadings must include factual allegations to support the legal claims asserted. Id. at 678, 685, 129 S.Ct. 1937. "Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Id. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955); see also Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 232 (3d Cir.2008) ("We caution that without some factual allegation in the complaint, a claimant cannot satisfy the requirement that he or she provide not only `fair notice,' but also the `grounds' on which the claim rests." (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556 n. 3, 127 S.Ct. 1955)). Accordingly, to survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must plead "factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955).
Despite Iqbal's strong ruling that the courts need only accept the truth of factual allegations contained in a complaint, Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint contains constant confusion of facts and legal arguments that impeded the Court's review.
Plaintiff's claims can be summarized as follows:
Plaintiff claims that Defendants violated his constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment by arresting and then searching him without probable cause.
The threshold issue for Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claims is whether Bail had probable cause to arrest him. Holmes v. McGuigan, 184 Fed.Appx. 149, 150 (3d Cir.2006) (citing Dowling v. City of Philadelphia, 855 F.2d 136, 141 (3d Cir.1988)). "Probable cause exists whenever reasonably trustworthy information or circumstances within a police officer's knowledge are sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution to conclude that an offense has been committed by the person being arrested." United States v. Myers, 308 F.3d 251, 255 (3d Cir.2002). "A police officer may be liable for civil damages for an arrest if `no reasonable competent officer' would conclude that probable cause exists." Wilson v. Russo, 212 F.3d 781, 786 (3d Cir.2000) (quoting Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341, 106 S.Ct. 1092, 89 L.Ed.2d 271 (1986)). The fact that a plaintiff was ultimately acquitted of all charges for which he was arrested "is irrelevant to the probable cause analysis." Wright v. City of Philadelphia, 409 F.3d 595, 602 (3d Cir.2005) (citing Michigan v. DeFillippo, 443 U.S. 31, 36, 99 S.Ct. 2627, 61 L.Ed.2d 343 (1979)) ("the constitutional validity of the arrest does not depend on whether the suspect actually committed any crime" (citing Johnson v. Campbell, 332 F.3d 199, 211 (3d Cir.2003))).
Plaintiff argues that Bail used an untrue affidavit of probable cause to obtain the warrant for his arrest. In order to succeed on his false affidavit theory, Plaintiff must plead facts that, if true, could establish that:
Wilson, 212 F.3d at 786-87 (citation and quotations omitted). Under this standard, Bail could not proffer any facts of which he had a "high degree of awareness of [their] probable falsity" — i.e., "when viewing all the evidence, [Bail] must have entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his statements or had obvious reasons to doubt the accuracy of the information he reported"; and Bail was expected to disclose all facts "in his ken that [a]ny reasonable person would have known ... was the kind of thing the judge would wish to know" — a paradigm balancing between the extremes of requiring that "officers relate the entire history of events leading up to a warrant application with every potentially evocative
"To determine the materiality of... misstatements and omissions, [courts] excise the offending inaccuracies and insert the facts recklessly omitted, and then determine whether or not the `corrected' warrant affidavit would establish probable cause." Id. at 789 (citing Sherwood v. Mulvihill, 113 F.3d 396, 399 (3d Cir.1997)). Thus, in evaluating the truthfulness of Bail's affidavit, the Court is not concerned with whether Bail described what actually transpired during the Crown Chicken Incident, but, rather, whether Bail accurately reported the information of which he was personally aware.
For the reasons below, the Court finds that the information in Bail's affidavit was sufficient to establish legal probable cause to arrest Plaintiff, and Plaintiff has not pleaded facts that can lead to a reasonable conclusion that Bail misstated or omitted material facts. Therefore, Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claims must fail.
Plaintiff alleges, and Defendants do not dispute, that Bail's affidavit stated that:
(2d Am. Compl. ¶ 31.) Plaintiff also alleged, and Defendants do not dispute, that Bail obtained a warrant for three crimes: aggravated assault, simple assault, and harassment. (Id. ¶ 34.)
The elements of these crimes are consistent with Bail's affidavit, and, therefore, the affidavit was sufficient to establish probable cause to arrest Plaintiff:
Hitting another person with a pistol, as Bail alleged Plaintiff did, may amount to aggravated assault. See Commw. of Pa. v. Duffy, 832 A.2d 1132, 1138 (Pa.Super.Ct.2003), appeal denied, 577 Pa. 694, 845 A.2d 816 (2004) (stating that "`striking the victim with a gun, may be used to satisfy the force requirements of at least two crimes, kidnapping and aggravated assault, and the sentences for each will not merge because these crimes are not greater and lesser included offenses'" (quoting Commw. of Pa. v. Anderson, 538 Pa. 574, 650 A.2d 20, 22 (1994))); Commw. of Pa. v. Gruff, 822 A.2d 773, 779 (Pa.Super.Ct.2003), appeal denied, 581 Pa. 672,
Plaintiff neither argues in his Response nor alleges facts in his Second Amended Complaint sufficient to support an argument that Bail made false statements in his affidavit. To the contrary, Plaintiff's allegations are not inconsistent with Bail's affidavit: Plaintiff alleges that "[t]he force [he] used consisted of, inter alia, drawing his pistol and physically escorting Fowler out of the store." (2d Am. Compl. ¶ 11 (emphasis added).) Indeed, in his Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff never denies striking Fowler with his pistol.
Plaintiff does allege that "Worrilow's second investigation revealed that other people present at the Crown Chicken... had not seen [Plaintiff] strike Fowler." (Id. ¶ 29.) However, this information could not have given Bail the requisite "obvious reasons to doubt the accuracy of" his account of Plaintiff's conduct, Wilson, 212 F.3d at 788,
Perhaps more importantly, Plaintiff acknowledges — by using the phrase "inter alia," i.e., among other things — that his Second Amended Complaint omits facts about the force he used against Fowler. (2d Am. Compl. ¶ 11.)
Plaintiff alleges that Bail omitted two categories of information from his affidavit:
For the reasons below, this information cannot establish that Bail's affidavit was false.
According to Plaintiff, Bail knew and should have disclosed in his affidavit that
(2d Am. Compl. ¶ 30.)
However, Plaintiff provides no argument or legal authority supporting his contention that these facts are material to the determination of probable cause. Indeed, the Court cannot divine how these facts are "the kind of thing[s] [a] judge would wish to know," Wilson, 212 F.3d at 788 (citation and quotation omitted), because they have no impact on whether the information in Bail's affidavit was sufficient to establish probable cause.
In his Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he "was compelled to defend himself" against Fowler's aggressive behavior, and that Bail's "fail[ure] to inform the judicial authority that Fowler had threatened to shoot [Plaintiff] and that [Plaintiff] had told Fowler several times to leave him alone" amounted to a "misrepresent[ation] and/or omi[ssion of] ... relevant and material facts." (Id. ¶¶ 11, 31.) Although Plaintiff's Response fails to elaborate on the basis for these legal conclusions,
For the reasons below, the Court finds that Plaintiff's claims of self-defense cannot negate the otherwise valid probable cause Bail had to arrest him.
The Third Circuit has addressed the relationship between affirmative defenses and probable cause on at least three occasions: Holman v. City of York, PA, 564 F.3d 225, 231 (3d Cir.2009); Sands v. McCormick, 502 F.3d 263 (3d Cir.2007); and Radich v. Goode, 886 F.2d 1391 (3d Cir.1989). Although the Third Circuit apparently endorses the general principle that affirmative defenses may negate probable cause, it has never specifically addressed self-defense in a precedential opinion and has defined only other circumstances in which other affirmative defenses do not negate probable cause. See Holman, 564 F.3d at 231 ("We do not endorse the [d]istrict [c]ourt's statement that affirmative defenses are `not a relevant consideration' — as we have never so held — but we do conclude that, here, the defense ... need not have been considered....").
Holman also expressed particular concern with imposing requirements that would complicate officers' at-the-scene determinations of probable cause, id. (holding that "the defense of necessity need not have been considered in the assessment of probable cause for arrest for trespass at the scene" (emphasis added)), and distinguished between:
suggesting that the former category of defenses are more appropriately considered part of an officer's determination of probable cause, id. at 230.
Applying the test in Holman, the Court concludes that, as a matter of law, self-defense is not the type of affirmative defense that officers must consider or disclose in affidavits of probable cause. In reaching this conclusion, the Court notes that claims of self-defense to an assault necessarily admit involvement in a violent altercation. Thus, self-defense is inherently an issue that must be decided at trial, not by a police officer or a judge at a hearing to issue an arrest warrant.
Alternatively, the Court finds that even if self-defense could negate probable cause, Plaintiff's allegations are insufficient to permit a reasonable officer to conclude that his conduct during the Crown Chicken Incident was self-defense.
Because the Court finds that Bail had probable cause to arrest Plaintiff as a matter of law, Plaintiff has no viable claim under the Fourth Amendment.
Proper pleading of Plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim requires that he allege facts that, if true, would establish:
Thomas v. Independence Twp., 463 F.3d 285, 296 (3d Cir.2006), abrogated on other grounds by Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (citing Mitchell v. Horn, 318 F.3d 523, 530 (3d Cir.2003)). The Court previously dismissed Plaintiff's First Amendment claim without prejudice, granting Plaintiff "leave to replead this count with greater clarity and facts supporting a causal link" between his allegedly protected speech and Defendants' allegedly retaliatory conduct. 2012 WL 1646009, at *5 (E.D.Pa. May 9, 2012). The Court also instructed Plaintiff that he "should specify what he means by `Free speech and/or Petition Clause activities.'" Id.
Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint alleges that Defendants retaliated against him "for exercising his free speech and his right to petition for a finding of not guilty in open court." (2d Am. Compl. ¶ 49.) In his Response, Plaintiff clarifies that he is claiming that Defendants retaliated against him because his testimony was instrumental in securing dismissal of Fowler's private criminal complaint. (Resp. at 8.) According to Plaintiff, "Defendants were unhappy with the dismissal," and, as a result, reinvestigated and arrested him. (Id.)
A procedural due process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment "is subject to a two-stage inquiry:
Schmidt v. Creedon, 639 F.3d 587, 595 (3d Cir.2011) (citations and quotations omitted). Defendants do not dispute that Plaintiff had a property interest in not being suspended or terminated from his job as a Chester Police officer. Instead, Defendants argue that he was either not entitled to process, or the process he received was sufficient to satisfy his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Plaintiff alleges that after he was arrested, Defendants suspended him without pay and without a pre-suspension hearing. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants denied him the post-suspension and pre-termination hearing to which he was entitled under a collective bargaining agreement and Chester's Home Rule Charter.
Plaintiff's allegation that he was suspended without any hearing is sufficient to state a claim for violation of his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights.
Plaintiff also has a claim for denial of due process during his post-suspension and pre-termination hearing. Defendants do not dispute that Plaintiff was entitled to a hearing before the City Council. Instead, they contend that Plaintiff was offered such a hearing, but declined to attend it. This is a factual dispute that cannot be resolved on a motion to dismiss.
A claim of civil conspiracy under section 1983 requires:
Eichelman v. Lancaster County, 510 F.Supp.2d 377, 392 (E.D.Pa.2007) (Strawbirdge, Mag. J.) (citing Marchese v. Umstead, 110 F.Supp.2d 361, 371 (E.D.Pa. 2000) (Reed, J.)). A conspiracy consists of "`a combination between two or more persons to do an unlawful act, or to do a lawful act by unlawful means, or to accomplish an unlawful purpose.'" Id. (quoting Franklin Music Co. v. Am. Broad. Cos., Inc., 616 F.2d 528, 534 (3d Cir.1979)). As described above, Plaintiff has a viable section 1983 claim for denial of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Because Plaintiff alleged that Butler's, Lewis's, Bail's, and Alston's conduct giving rise to this claim was prompted by their January 2009 agreement with Bail, Plaintiff also has a viable conspiracy claim under section 1983.
Defendants seek dismissal of Plaintiff's claims against Chester because of his failure to plead a plausible factual basis for municipal liability under Monell v. N.Y. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). The Court disagrees.
Chester "`may be liable under [section] 1983 for a single decision ... by the official or officials responsible for establishing final policy with respect to the subject matter in question.'" Langford v. City of Atlantic City, 235 F.3d 845, 848 (3d Cir.2000) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 480, 483-85, 106 S.Ct. 1292, 89 L.Ed.2d 452 (1986)). Plaintiff alleged that the Mayor of Chester and the Chief of Police were directly involved in manipulating his post-suspension/pre-termination hearing. (2d Am. Compl. ¶¶ 35-39). Because mayors and chiefs of police are municipal decisionmakers, Plaintiffs' allegations are sufficient to make out a claim for municipal liability. See McTernan v. City of York, Pa., 564 F.3d 636, 658-59 (3d Cir.2009) (identifying the mayor and chief of police as municipal decisionmakers whose conduct may support municipal liability).
Plaintiff brings claims for false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, invasion of privacy via publicity placing him in a false light, and conspiracy.
Plaintiff's claims for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution fail because they both require an absence of probable cause for his arrest, and, as discussed above, Bail had probable cause to arrest him. Manley v. Fitzgerald, 997 A.2d 1235, 1241 (Pa.Commw.Ct.2010) (citing Renk v. City of Pittsburgh, 537 Pa. 68, 641 A.2d 289, 293 (1994) and Turano v. Hunt, 158 Pa.Cmwlth. 348, 631 A.2d 822, 824 (1993)).
Plaintiff's invasion of privacy claim also must fail because he cannot prove the element of "publicity," "that a matter [was] made public by communicating it to the public at large, or to so many persons that the matter must be regarded as substantially certain to become one of public knowledge." DeBlasio v. Pignoli, 918 A.2d 822, 824 n. 3 (Pa. Commw.Ct.2007), appeal denied, 598 Pa. 770, 956 A.2d 437 (2008) (citing Harris by Harris v. Easton Publ'g Co., 335 Pa.Super. 141, 483 A.2d 1377, 1383-85 (1984) (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652D)). Plaintiff's arrest, hearing before the Civil Service Commission, and criminal trial are the only forms of "publicity" he alleged. None is sufficient alone, or in combination, to support a false light claim.
Werner v. Plater-Zyberk, 799 A.2d 776, 785 (Pa.Super.Ct.2002) (citation and quotation omitted); see Urban v. Dollar Bank, 725 A.2d 815, 817, 821-22 (Pa.Super.Ct.1999) (suggesting that abuse of process would cover plaintiff's claim that her employer had instituted involuntary commitment proceedings against her for the purpose of creating a record to justify her termination).
Having made out a claim for abuse of process, and having alleged that Defendants agreed to engage in the conduct giving rise to that claim during their alleged January 2009 meeting, Plaintiff also has a claim for civil conspiracy, which requires:
Doltz v. Harris & Associates, 280 F.Supp.2d 377, 389 (E.D.Pa.2003) (Baylson, J.) (citation and quotation omitted).
The Court noted above several instances in which Plaintiff failed to plead sufficient allegations. Because Plaintiff has now filed three complains, the Court will assume that Plaintiff has plead the facts as best he can, and no further amendment will be allowed. See Great W. Mining & Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP, 615 F.3d 159, 175 (3d Cir.2010) ("Under [Federal] Rule [of Civil Procedure] 15(a), futility of amendment is a sufficient basis to deny leave to amend. Futility `means that the complaint, as amended, would fail to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.'" (quoting In re Merck & Co. Inc., Sec., Derivative & ERISA Litig., 493 F.3d 393, 400 (3d Cir. 2007))).
Defendants' Motion is GRANTED with respect to:
Defendants' Motion is DENIED with respect to:
An appropriate order follows.
Merkle, the only Third Circuit case Davis cited, stated only that an officer has no duty to "undertake an exhaustive investigation in order to validate probable cause that, in [the officer's] mind, already existed." 211 F.3d at 790 n. 8. An officer's duty to investigate is entirely distinguishable from the issue of whether evidence establishing exculpatory defenses can negate probable cause.
Regarding the two Second Circuit opinions Davis cited, Jocks and Ricciuti, Jocks specifically held both that evidence of defenses eliminating culpability can negate probable cause, and that self-defense may qualify as such a defense. Jocks, 316 F.3d at 135-36. Jocks also cited Ricciuti in the course of explaining that "we do not ... permit an officer to deliberately disregard facts known to him which establish a justification." Jocks, 316 F.3d at 135-36 (stating that the holding in Ricciuti was limited to the issue of whether an officer had a "duty ... to investigate exculpatory defenses offered by the person being arrested or to assess the credibility of unverified claims of justification before making an arrest.")
Gramenos, decided by the Seventh Circuit in 1986, addressed affirmative defenses not at all. Rather, its relevant holding was that "the report of a[single] eyewitness who has good reasons to tell the truth furnishes probable cause." 797 F.2d at 440. In discussing the basis for this conclusion, Gramenos endorsed the position that with such a report in hand, officers may obtain a warrant "without further investigation or a narration of contrary evidence." 797 F.2d at 440 (emphasis added). This places Gramenos in apparent tension with at least two later Third Circuit cases, Wilson v. Russo, 212 F.3d 781 (3d Cir.2000), and Reedy v. Evanson, 615 F.3d 197 (2010), which clearly stand for the proposition that police officers may not ignore exculpatory evidence. Reedy, 615 F.3d at 214, 223 (officers cannot "`disregard plainly exculpatory evidence, even if substantial inculpatory evidence (standing by itself) suggests that probable cause exists,'" thereby "creat[ing an] `unnecessary danger of unlawful arrest'" (quoting Wilson, 212 F.3d at 790, and Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 345, 106 S.Ct. 1092, 89 L.Ed.2d 271 (1986))).
Under Holman, the former is not actionable. Regarding the latter, the Court can see how such conduct would still be actionable, despite the holding in Holman. However, such exceptional cases present unique considerations that are simply not relevant when an officer executes his duties in the ordinary course.
The facts of Jocks, the case in which the Second Circuit held that self-defense could negate probable cause, are illustrative. In Jocks, the plaintiff was arrested by an off-duty officer after the plaintiff allegedly assaulted him. The plaintiff claimed that the officer had provoked the use of force in self-defense by threatening the plaintiff with a pistol without identifying himself as a police officer. 316 F.3d at 132. Under such circumstances, a reasonable jury could conclude that the officer never entertained a good-faith belief that the plaintiff had committed a crime and was motivated to arrest the plaintiff by a desire to exact revenge or cover-up his own unlawful use of a firearm. (The Court notes that Jocks neither relied on nor discussed the issue of good-faith raised in by this Court.)
Unlike Jocks, the facts of this case cannot support a reasonable inference that Bail lacked a good-faith belief that Plaintiff had committed a crime. Indeed, for reasons discussed in the text, even assuming that Bail believed Plaintiff's account of the Crown Chicken Incident, Bail could not have reasonably concluded that Plaintiff had acted in self-defense.
