False Arrest Claims under 42 USC § 1983 - False Arrest Claims under Florida Law - Juvenile Falsely Arrested in Clay County

How do you prove a claim of False Arrest in Florida?

How do you prove a claim of False Arrest in Florida?

An innocent juvenile spent 35 days in the Clay County Jail after three deputies failed check that they had the correct suspect based on a photo lineup. The correct suspect was another student at the high school with the same name. The three deputies involved have been disciplined.  According to published reports, "The mistake wasn't discovered until the teen received court documents detailing the charges against him." Reports also indicate, "Authorities say investigators failed to confirm their suspect's identity with a photo lineup. They actually had been seeking another student at the same high school with the same name."

False Arrest Claims under 42 USC § 1983

The University of Chicago Law review notes, "Under § 1983, citizens may seek redress for violations of their constitutional rights by state or local officials,9 including police officers. The statute guarantees that “[e]very person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any State or

Territory . . . subjects . . . any . . . person . . . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured.” A § 1983 action has two essential elements: that the alleged injury was committed by a person acting under color of state law, and that this conduct deprived the person of a right “secured by the Constitution and the laws” of the United States."

False Arrest Claims under Florida Law

The University of Chicago Law review also notes "the only difference between the federal § 1983 claim and the pendent state claim was the placement of the burden of proof—under Florida law, probable cause was an affirmative defense, while in the Eleventh Circuit, the “plaintiffs had the burden of demonstrating the absence of probable cause in order to succeed in their § 1983 claim.”"

If you have been the victim of a false arrest, please contact our office for a consultation.

Authored by: Jennifer Salter, Esquire
For the full report, please see: http://www.wcjb.com/local-news-state-news/2014/02/teen-spends-35-days-jail-after-mistaken-arrest

Source: http://lawreview.uchicago.edu/sites/lawreview.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/73.1/73_1_Newman.pdf

Fourth Amendment Supreme Court Warrantless Entries into the Home

Fourth Amendment

Tampa Criminal Attorney notes, On Monday, November 4, 2013, the Supreme Court laid down a decree that further minimizes a person’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from warrantless searches and seizures by law enforcement. The case in question is Stanton v. Sims. While the case was a civil claim for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Civil Rights, it will have ramifications in criminal cases as well.

The circumstances surrounding Stanton v. Sims are that Officer Mike Stanton responded to a call regarding an unknown disturbance involving a person with a baseball bat. As Stanton neared the area where the disturbance had been reported, three men were walking in the street. The neighborhood had a reputation for “violence associated with the area gangs.” Two of the men ran upon seeing Stanton’s marked police vehicle. The third man, Nicholas Patrick, crossed in front of the marked vehicle, and he moved quickly towards a residence. The residence was owned by the Plaintiff, Drendolyn Sims, which it does not appear Stanton knew.

Stanton did not see Patrick with a baseball bat or any other weapon, but wanted to detain him because of Patrick’s suspicious behavior and to investigate the disturbance. Stanton identified himself as police and ordered Patrick to stop, but Patrick did not. Patrick did appear to hear the order but ignored Stanton’s lawful command and went through a gate of a fence. The gate closed and Stanton kicked open the gate to continue pursuit of Patrick. However, Ms. Sims was behind the gate when it flew open. The swinging gate struck Ms. Sims, cut her forehead and injured her shoulder. Stanton felt that Patrick committed a jailable misdemeanor by disobeying Stanton’s order to stop.

Sims filed suit against Stanton in Federal District Court, alleging that Stanton unreasonably searched her home without a warrant in violation of the Fourth Amendment. On appeal, the Supreme Court disagreed. The Court’s ruling suggests that when an officer is in “hot pursuit” of somebody who allegedly commits even a minor offense, a warrantless entry into the home is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment and did not subject Stanton to personal liability to damages here. 

The Supreme Court had previously found, where an alleged felony occurred, and the officer was in hot pursuit, a warrantless entry into the home does not violate the Fourth Amendment. The ruling here seems to say hot pursuit of alleged offender trumps the sacred boundaries of a person’s home. This case reveals a distancing from the sanctity of the home and seems at odds with the 2013 case of Florida v. Jardines (front porch sniff by drug dog deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment) which only seemed to bolster the importance of this core constitutional right.

Guest Author Adam Dinsbier

• W.F. Casey Ebsary, Jr.