Opinion ID: 3013319
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Defendants Warren, Trostle, and Spencer

Text: The District Court granted Warren and Trostle qualified immunity, holding that a reasonable police officer, under these circumstances, would believe there was probable cause for Noone's arrest. Where an officer executes an arrest based on an objectively reasonable belief that there is a valid warrant, he may be entitled to qualified immunity. Berg, 219 F.3d at 272. It is usually reasonable for an officer to believe a warrant was issued for probable cause. Id. Furthermore, an arresting officer is not required to make an independent investigation for every suspect who claims innocence, provided the officer's reliance on an arrest warrant is reasonable in light of the relevant circumstances. Id. at 272-73. Noone was arrested based on a warrant containing his name and date of birth. Although Noone proclaimed his innocence, it was not unreasonable for Warren and Trostle to conclude that Noone was the proper individual sought. Furthermore, because the warrant was issued for failure to appear in court, it was not unreasonable for the officers to refuse Noone's request to resolve the matter at a later date. For these reasons, we will affirm the grant of summary judgment with respect to Warren and Trostle. With respect to defendant Spencer, Noone contends there was a genuine issue of material fact whether Spencer was liable under § 1983 on the basis of deliberate indifference. In Berg, we left open the question whether liability under these 7 circumstances should be analyzed as a Fourth Amendment violation or as due process “deliberate indifference.”7 219 F.3d at 274. We need not resolve that here because under either theory, Spencer is entitled to summary judgment. As for a possible Fourth Amendment violation, the District Court held: “[T]here is no evidence before the Court that Spencer intentionally caused the arrest of plaintiff. Indeed, the warrant for plaintiff’s arrest was issued by the municipal court for failure to appear before the municipal court judge. There is no evidence which implicates Spencer in this decision.” We agree.8 There can be no § 1983 liability here under the Fourth Amendment. Under a due process theory, the District Court held: 7 In Berg we said: Where a defendant does not intentionally cause the plaintiff to be seized, but is nonetheless responsible for the seizure, it may be that a due process “deliberate indifference” rather than a Fourth Amendment analysis is appropriate. . . . We need not decide that here, however, because Berg has not alleged anything more than mere negligence on Demko’s part. 219 F.3d at 274. 8 In his deposition, Spencer stated that he did not fill in a date of birth or social security number because Noone III “gave [him] no information.” He “attempted to contact the court on at least two prior occasions to let them know there was confusion between a James Noone, the father, and a James Noone, the son.” When asked why he did not try to identify more specifically the James Noone to which he was referring, Spencer said, “The system is not set up to do that and I tried to get that rectified with the court.” When asked if he could have done more, Spencer said, “Yes, I’m sure I could have, but I don’t normally do that because I was a shift commander.” He did not assign to one of his subordinate officers the task of tracking down more information because Noone III “was totally uncooperative at that time. There was nothing to indicate to me [Spencer] that he would be more cooperative at another time.” Spencer did not run a DMV check on James Noone using the address he had because he was not capable of doing that for a Pennsylvania license. 8 There were no reasonably available measures to reduce or eliminate a serious risk which Spencer could have taken in this case. Indeed, the entire incident could have been avoided in its entirety i[f] plaintiff’s son [had] provided a modicum of cooperation with Spencer during the stolen car investigation. Spencer did not arrest plaintiff; and there is no evidence of deliberate indifference on the part of Spencer. Accordingly, there can be no liability. Knowing of two people by the name “James Noone” on the date the summons issued and aware of potential confusion, Spencer “attempted to contact the court on at least two prior occasions to let them know there was confusion between a James Noone, the father, and James Noone, the son.” The reason the summons lacked a date of birth, social security number, and proper address was “because Mr. Noone didn’t give it to me [Spencer] and that’s why he was charged with obstructing justice.” Spencer also testified that the reason he did not have the information was “because he [Noone III] was totally uncooperative at that time. There was nothing to indicate to me [Spencer] that he would be more cooperative at another time.” In hindsight, it is possible that Spencer could have done more at a later time to try to ascertain the correct date of birth, social security number, and address. But the failure to do so would merely amount to negligence, not deliberate indifference. Therefore, under either a Fourth Amendment or due process claim, Spencer was entitled to summary judgment.