CA3: State court suppression of search isn’t favorable termination for malicious prosecution case

Just because the evidence was suppressed in plaintiff’s criminal case and then affirmed on appeal doesn’t mean the criminal case was terminated in his favor on the facts. He possessed heroin, and that’s not in dispute, and there was probable cause. Allen v. N.J. State Police, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 28461 (3d Cir. Sept. 9, 2020).

“In conclusion, Trooper Corrie, while participating in a coordinated effort to serve an arrest warrant on an armed robbery suspect, reasonably used lethal force against a dog who, unrebutted testimony shows, aggressively charged at him, growled, and showed his teeth, as though about to attack. We will thus affirm the District Court’s order granting summary judgment.” This was not a passive dog that was shot. Specific training isn’t the issue; it’s reasonableness. Bletz v. Corrie, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 28463 (3d Cir. Sept. 9, 2020).*

This entry was posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Reasonableness. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.