Opinion ID: 478301
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Existence of Qualified Immunity.

Text: 5 The legal test for qualified immunity to be applied by the court is whether the conduct of the state official violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982); see Malley v. Briggs, 106 S. Ct. 1092, 1096 (1986). The burden of establishing such a violation is on the defendant. Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818. We conclude that no genuine issue of fact existed within the meaning of Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c), and that the case was therefore in proper posture for summary judgment disposition. 6 The following facts were established by affidavits filed in support of appellees' motion for summary judgment and were before the trial court without challenge: 7 1) A description of the suspect was given on two separate occasions by one victim. The second description was consistent with the victim's prior statement. Both descriptions were consistent with Valenti's appearance. 8 2) The victim, on the day of the incident, was able, without bias, influence or suggestion, to make a composite picture of her assailant. 9 3) The composite was independently identified as being of Valenti by an Akron police officer who, prior and subsequent to receiving it had no part in the investigation other than providing this information. 10 4) The booking pictures of appellant on file in the Akron Police Department were strikingly similar to the composite. 11 5) Two different photo arrays, each containing a different picture of appellant, were prepared and shown at different times to the two victims and one witness. Each positively identified Valenti as the assailant. 12 6) Appellant had a criminal history of sex related offenses. 13 7) The arrest warrant was issued by the police legal advisor, a prosecuting attorney familar with criminal law, on the basis of a full and fair disclosure of the facts of the investigation. 14 8) Appellee Overfield continued his investigation in an attempt to locate the assailant's vehicle as described to him by victims and witnesses. 15 9) Following his arrest, Valenti was identified by both victims as their assailant at a hearing before the Ohio Parole Authority. 16 In the absence of controverting evidence, these facts clearly establish that probable cause existed for the arrest of the appellant, and that the arresting officers acted in good faith. It follows that the individual appellees are entitled to qualified immunity on the facts established by the record, and that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment in their favor. 17