Opinion ID: 3012848
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Post Arrest Detention

Text: Finally, Shabazz argues that summary judgment was inappropriate on her claim that her post arrest detention violated her constitutional rights. A reasonable jury clearly 3 Shabazz’s brief states that “pursuant to written policy, the City of Philadelphia Police Department ordered the removal of all headgear while photographs were being taken . . . .” However, she never raised the issue of the City’s policy in the district court, and there is nothing here to even suggest Lederer is a policy maker. Thus, even if Shabazz had properly preserved the issue of the City’s policy, it would not support a finding of liability against a Lieutenant in the police department. 5 could conclude that Lederer and Officer Brodie did not conduct an error free investigation. However, an error free investigation is not constitutionally required of officials charged with maintaining the custody of the accused. Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 146 (1979). Shabazz’s allegations regarding shoddy police work do not rise to the level of a § 1983 claim against Lederer or Brodie. “The Constitution does not guarantee that only the guilty will be arrested. If it did, § 1983 would provide a cause of action for every defendant acquitted -- indeed, for every suspect released.” Id. at 145. A reasonable jury could not find that Shabazz’s post arrest detention violated her constitutionally protected rights. Accordingly, the district court properly granted summary judgment.