Summary
This Second Circuit opinion affirms the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of police officers against a bus driver who sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest, malicious prosecution, and retaliatory prosecution. The court held that the officers possessed probable cause to arrest and prosecute the driver for reckless endangerment, breach of the peace, and unlawful restraint after she allegedly locked a passenger inside a moving bus's luggage compartment. Additionally, the court determined that available surveillance video did not constitute plainly exculpatory evidence sufficient to dissipate probable cause or establish a First Amendment retaliatory prosecution claim.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether probable cause supported Alberty's arrest for reckless endangerment and breach of the peace.
- Whether the later availability of surveillance video and an officer's opinion that the incident appeared accidental dissipated probable cause to prosecute Alberty for reckless endangerment, breach of the peace, or unlawful restraint.
- Whether probable cause defeated Alberty's First Amendment retaliatory-prosecution claim based on her refusal to provide a custodial statement without a lawyer.
- Whether summary judgment was properly granted to the defendants.
Holdings
- The defendants had probable cause to arrest Alberty for reckless endangerment and breach of the peace, so her false-arrest claim could not succeed.
- Probable cause existed to prosecute Alberty for reckless endangerment, breach of the peace, and unlawful restraint, and the surveillance video and related opinion that the incident appeared accidental did not dissipate that probable cause.
- Probable cause defeated Alberty's retaliatory-prosecution claim because the officers had probable cause to add and prosecute the unlawful-restraint charge, and no plainly exculpatory evidence dissipated that probable cause.
Key quotations
“The district court’s grant of summary judgment to Defendants rested on a finding of probable cause as to the false arrest claims.” (11)
“We do not do so here either.” (20)
“Accordingly, Defendants had probable cause at all relevant times to arrest and charge Alberty for breach of the peace, reckless endangerment, and unlawful restraint.” (29)
Factual background
During a layover in Hartford, passenger entered a Peter Pan bus's luggage compartment to retrieve a cellphone charger. Alberty later closed and secured the compartment, and the bus departed with the passenger inside; after the passenger called 911, police stopped the bus and rescued her. The passenger identified Alberty as the person who knowingly locked her inside, while Alberty denied knowing the passenger was in the compartment. Police arrested Alberty for reckless endangerment and breach of the peace and later added unlawful restraint; the charges were ultimately dismissed. Officers learned that station surveillance video appeared accidental, but the video was not viewed by the arresting officers and, according to the court, did not plainly exculpate Alberty.
Procedural history
Wendy Alberty sued three Connecticut police officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Connecticut law after criminal charges arising from a bus-luggage-compartment incident were dismissed nolle prosequi. The district court granted defendants summary judgment, concluding that probable cause supported the arrest and that arguable probable cause supported prosecution. The Second Circuit affirmed, although it relied on actual probable cause for the prosecution claims as an alternative ground.