CA6: Officer has a duty to not ignore available exculpatory evidence as it applies to probable cause on the totality of the evidence

The Sixth Circuit holds that officers who arrested a protester for a misdemeanor at an abortion clinic without determining probable cause had a duty to determine whether exculpatory evidence militated against probable cause on the totality of circumstances. Logsdon v. Hains, 492 F.3d 334, 2007 FED App. 0252P (6th Cir. 2007):

Reading Plaintiff’s complaint in the light most favorable to him, Defendants failed to reasonably determine whether they had probable cause. In the course of initially assessing whether probable cause to arrest Plaintiff existed, Defendants respectively “turn[ed] a blind eye” to potentially exculpatory evidence when they refused to listen to the witnesses at the scene. A prudent officer must draw reasonable conclusions from the facts and circumstances known to him as supported by “reasonably trustworthy information.” See Beck, 379 U.S. at 91. It appears that Defendants deliberately excluded from a totality of known facts and circumstances information that might bear on the accuracy, reliability, or trustworthiness of the report that Plaintiff had trespassed on CWS’s property. To that extent, Defendants did not act as “prudent officer[s]” and their conclusions cannot be deemed “reasonable.” Rather, potentially conflicting explanations from these eyewitnesses would have informed Defendants’ probable cause analyses, giving them reason to question the reliability of reports that Plaintiff had committed criminal trespass. Cf. Ahlers, 188 F.3d at 370. Although our Circuit’s precedent “does not mandate that law enforcement operatives should conduct quasi-trials as a necessary predicate to the warrantless arrest” of suspects, Painter, 185 F.3d at 571 n.21, it does require that warrantless arrest follow consideration of the totality of the circumstances reasonably known to the arresting officers. Because officers initially assessing probable cause to arrest may not off-handedly disregard potentially exculpatory information made readily available by witnesses on the scene, there is a set of facts consistent with the pleadings in which Defendants violated Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights. See Gardenhire, 205 F.3d at 318; Ahlers, 188 F.3d at 371-72; cf. Painter, 185 F.3d at 571.

. . .

Our conclusion is only that sufficient facts have been alleged to avoid dismissal on the pleadings. We conclude that Plaintiff has stated a claim that Defendants lacked probable cause to arrest Plaintiff and, therefore, that they violated Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights.

Comment: I’ve been writing a motion on and off that deals with a probable cause affidavit for arrest that is conclusory and ignores all the exculpatory evidence. Suddenly, it has legs that I did not believe it would have.

Law of the case barred relitigating on a second appeal a search issue determined in the first appeal. United States v. Currence, 231 Fed. Appx. 294 (4th Cir. 2007)* (per curiam).

Defendant who challenged his search on appeal could not raise the same ground in a 2255 habeas claim. United States v. Johnson, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48582 (W.D. La. July 3, 2007).*

The arrestee was arrested when he stood in the doorway of his home and refused to consent to the entry of police officers, including defendant officer. Although there was a search warrant for another person, there was no search warrant to enter the arrestee’s home. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit held that the record was clear that the officers did not have reasonable or probable cause to believe that the person for whom they held the warrant either resided in or was to be found at the arrestee’s home. Even when officers had a right to enter a home without a search warrant, the homeowner could not be arrested for refusing admission without a warrant. Because those principles were clearly established, defendant officer was not entitled to qualified immunity when he either failed to be cognizant of or ignored those principles. [Lexis overview] Villegas v. Hackett, 225 Fed. Appx. 580 (9th Cir. 2007)* (unpublished).