The Hon. Edw ard R. Kor man, United States District Court for the Easter n District of * New Y ork, sitting by

designation. 1 08 -11 23 -cv Gree n v. Webster UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT S UM M ARY OR DER R ul i ngs by s umm ary o rder do n ot have prece denti al ef fect . C i t ati on to a s umm ary o rder fi l ed on or aft er Ja nua ry 1 , 2 0 0 7 , i s p e r m itte d a n d is g o v e r n e d b y F e d e r a l R u le o f A p p e lla te P r o c e d u r e 3 2 .1 a n d t h is c o u r t’ s L o c a l R u le 32. 1. 1. W he n c i t i ng a s ummar y or de r i n a d ocu men t f i l ed w i t h t hi s c our t , a par t y mus t c i t e ei t he r t he Fede ral A p p en d i x o r a n elec tro n i c d a ta b a se (w i th th e no ta tion “ su m m a ry o rd er ” ). A p a rty citi n g a su m m a ry o rd er m u st se r v e a c o p y o f it o n a n y p a r ty n o t r e p r e se n te d b y c o u n se l. 1 At a stated te rm o f t h e Uni ted States Court of Appea ls for the Sec ond Circuit, held at the 2 Daniel Patric k Moy nihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on 3 the 7 day

of January , two thousand ten. th 4 5 PRES ENT: 6 7 G U ID O C A LA B R E S I, 8 DEB RA ANN L IVI NGSTON, 9 Circuit Judges , 10 EDWARD R. KORMAN, 11 District Judge . * 12 13 14 15 PAMELA GREEN, 16 17 Plaintif f-Appellant , 18 19 -v.- No. 08-1123-c v 20 21 E D W IN W . W E B S T E R , J R . , i nh i s i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i ty, 22 23 Defendant- Appellee . 242

1 D AVI D S ETH P UT TER , M o ntp e lie r, VT, for P la i n t i

f f -A p p el lant . 2 3 J OS EP H A. F AR NHAM (K evin J . Coyle, of counsel), McNe il 4 L eddy & Shea han, P.C., Bur lington, VT, for De fe nd an t5 Appellee . 6 7 8 Appea l from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Ve rmont 9 (Murtha, J. ). 10 UPON DUE CONSI DERATI ON, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED 11 that the judg ment of the district cour t be AF FIRMED. 12 Plaintiff-Appellant Pamela Gre en (“Gree n”) appea ls f rom a judg ment of the United States 13 District Court for the District of Ver mont (Murtha, J. ) entered Febr uary 7, 2008 grantingsummary 14 judgme nt to Defe ndant-Appe llee Of fice r Edwin W. Webster, J r. (“ Webster”) of the Stowe, Ve rmont 15 P o l i ce Depar

tment on Gree n’s § 1983 fa lse arr est claim. Gre en’s law suit ag ainst Webster and 16 various other

defe ndants arose from Gr een’ s arr est while she was a guest at Topnotch Resor

t and Spa 17 in Stowe, Vermont, in Fe bruar y , 2005. After the other defe ndants settled the ca se, the district cour t 18 ruled that Gr een ha d failed to de monstrate that a material que sti o n o f fac t exi sted on the issue 19 whether

Webster had pr obable c ause to a rre st Gree n for possessi o n o f co ca i ne at the time of her 20 arr est, eve n though subse quent eve nts would demonstrate that the substanc e Gr een posse ssed was 21 not, in fac t, coca ine. Se eGre e n v . To pn otc h a t Stowe , No. 1:06-CV-96, 2008 WL345886, at *3-4 22 (D. Vt. F eb . 7, 2008). The district c ourt also conc luded that Webster wa s entitled to qualified 23 immunit y . Id. We assume the par ties’ familiarity

with the factual and procedur al bac kg round of the 24 case as we ll as the specif ication of the issues f

or re view.3

1 We reviewa dis trict court’s grant of summar y judgme nt de novo, construingall fac ts in favor 2 of the non-movingparty . See, e .g. , Caiozzo v. Koreman , 581 F.3d 63, 68 ( 2d Cir. 2009). Summary 3 judgme nt is appropriate upon a showing “that there is no g enuine issue as t o any materia l fac t and 4 that the movant is entitled to judgment a s a matter of law.” F ed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). 5 The c entra l issue on appea l is whether Webster ha d probable cause to arre st Gree n. A 6 plaintiff may

not rec over f

or fa lse arr est when the arr estingoffice r had pr o b ab le ca use. Singer v. 7 Fu lto n Co un ty

Sh e rif f , 63 F.3d 110, 118 (2d Cir. 1995). Probable cause to arre st “exist s when one 8 has kn o wl ed g e of, or rea sonably

trustworthy

information as to, fa cts and c ircumstance s that are 9 sufficie nt to warra nt a person of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has been or is being 10 committed by the person to be arr ested.” W illiams v. Tow n of Greenburgh , 535 F.3d 71, 79 (2d Cir. 11 2 0 0 8 ) ( qu o t i n g Ze lln e r v . S um me rli n , 494 F.3d 344, 368 ( 2d Cir. 2007)) (inter nal quotation marks 12 and

a lte ratio ns omi tte d) . O ur inq uir y fo c us e s o n th e “ fa c ts k

no wn to t he arr e sti ng of

fi c e r at th e tim e 13 of the a

rre st.” Zellner , 4 9 4 F. 3 d

at3 6 9 (qu o t i n g Devenpe c k v . A lfo rd, 543 U.S. 146, 152 (2004)) 14 (interna l quotation mark omitted). “[A] m istake abo u t relevant fac ts . . . does not undermine the 15 exis tence of proba ble ca use.” W illiams , 535 F.3d at 79. 16 In this c ase Webster had probable cause to a rre st Gree n. It is undisput ed that at the time of 17 Gre en’s a

rre st W ebster and hi s two colleagues agree d that the white powde r found in Gr een’ s hotel 18 room field-te sted positive for coc aine. A re asonably trustworthy

field test that re turns a “positive” 19 result for the prese nce of coc aine is a suf ficient ba sis for proba

ble ca use. See, e .g. , United States v. 20 U r ic o e c h e a - Ca s a llas , 9 4 6 F.2d 162, 165-66 (1st Cir. 1991). Given this, to survive Webster’s 21 summa

ry jud g me nt m oti on

Gr e e n ha d to dem on str ate that a mate ri a l qu e sti on of fa c t e xiste d a s to 22 whether

the field test’s result was “ rea sonably trustworthy

information,” W

illiams , 535 F.3d at 79,4

1 i.e. , whe the r We bs te r h a d a ba sis fo r b e lie vin g , at th e tim e of Gr e e n’ s a rr e st, that th e “ po sit ive ” fi e ld 2 test result was inacc urate or unreliable . L ike the district c ourt, we conclude that Gre en has not made 3 such a showing . 4 Webs ter hadno ba sis fo r b e lie vin gthat th e fi e ld t e st w a s p e rf or me d im pr op e rl y . It is 5 un dis pute d th at We bs te r k ne w that O ff

ic e r C hr ist ie ns e n, wh o p e rf or me d th e te st, ha d f

ie ld 6 experience with coca ine ar rests, Pl’s Statement of Material Fa cts ¶ 20, and both office rs t estified that 7 they had experience doing field tests f o r d ru gs , id. ¶¶ 12, 20. Webster a sserted that Christi ensen 8 perf

ormed the f

ield test on the white powde r found in Gr een’ s room ac co rd i n g t o the test’s 9 instructions, Def

’s S tatement of Fa cts ¶ 21; this asser tion is confirme d by

Christiensen’s testimony 10 that he “r ead the instructions as [he] was doing[t he t es t] and did as the instruc tions indi cate d.” 11 Christiensen Dep. 13. Christiensen’s testimony also described the prope r seque nce of steps require d 12 to pe rf

or m the te st c or

re c tly and the c or

re c t c olo r c ha

ng e s that wo uld re su lt from a pro per ly 13 perf

ormed test. Id. 13-14. 14 Nor wa s there a materia l question of fac t whether Webster had a basis for believingthat the 15 test did not in fact produc e a positive re sult. Ag ain, all three office rs involved at the sc ene a g ree d 16 at the time that the re sult was positive, and eve n the most ambiguous of the office rs’ reports, that of 17 Of

fi c e r D oughert y , re c or ds a c olo r s e qu e nc e that is c on sis te nt w itha po sit ive fi na l r e su lt. 18 Christ ie ns e n’ s r e po rt c on fi rm s th is c on c lus ion . Gre e n p oints t o th e la c k of a de sc ri pti on of the fu ll 19 color-c hang e seque nce in a ny of the off icer s’ repor

ts, but none of the reports purports to describe the 20 entire se quence of color c hang es that took place duringthe test, and a ll indic at e t h at t h e test was 21 positive at its conclusion. Moreover , as noted a bove, Christiensen testified that the c orre ct color22 chang e seque nce took plac e. Dougherty further testified that he only

rec orded the “fina l result” of5

1 what he sa

w and a dmitted that “other c olor chang es” could have occur red prior to the final seque nce 2 that he did not rec ord. Dougherty Dep. 39. F inally , althoug h Gre en points to “exculpatory evidenc e” 3 that should have sug g ested she w as not guilty of a c rime, Pl.’s Br . at 42, 56, none of this evidence 4 at th e ti me of th e arr e st w ou ld h ave te nd e d f ro m We bs te r’ s p e rs pe c tiv e to n e g ate the re a so na ble 5 probability , cre ated by the positive field test, that Gre en wa s in possession of coc aine. Cf. Kuehl v. 6 Bu rti

s , 17 3 F .3 d 64 6, 65 0 (8 th Cir . 1 99 9) ; Ricciuti v. N.Y . City Trans it Auth. , 124 F.3d 123, 128 ( 2d 7 Cir . 1 99 7) (“ On c e a po lic e of fi c e r ha s a r e a so na

bleba sis fo r b e lie vin gthe re is p ro ba ble c a us e , h e is 8 not require d to expl ore a nd eliminate eve ry

theore tically plausible claim of innoce nce be fore making 9 an ar

rest.”) . 10 We have c onsidered Gree n’s re maining a rguments and find them to be without merit. F or 11 the fore g oing r easons, the judgment of the district cour t is hereby

AFF I RMED. 12 13 FOR THE COURT: 14 Catherine O ’Ha g an Wolfe, Clerk 15 16 B y : 17