Opinion ID: 3010405
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Immunity in this Case

Text: Edwards acted in reliance on statements made by Davy and Miller concerning the existence of an outstanding arrest warrant for Rogers in Lycoming County. The relevant question is whether it was objectively reasonable for him to believe, on the basis of the statements, that probable cause existed for the arrest. Unlike the officers in Capone, Edwards never received a clear statement from a fellow law enforcement officer confirming the existence of probable cause for the suspect's arrest. The content of the statements made by Davy and Miller merely related rumors that were circulating about Rogers. The statements never confirmed the existence of an arrest warrant for Rogers in Lycoming County. Statements made by Miller regarding the existence of summary warrants in Clinton County were sufficiently clear; however those statements are not relevant since the summary warrants were not the basis for Edwards' arrest of Rogers. Given the facts before us and in the absence of any statement confirming the existence of probable cause or a warrant itself, we do not believe that Edwards' reliance on the statements was reasonable. Thus, as a matter of law it was not objectively reasonable for Edwards to believe that probable cause existed for the arrest and hence Edwards is not protected against Rogers' § 1983 claim by the doctrine of qualified immunity. Accordingly, we will reverse the 15 district court's order granting summary judgment as to Edwards.8
Eiler acted in reliance on the statements of Edwards. Unlike the vague statements of Davy and Miller, the statements made by Edwards to the other troopers involved were clear, and unambiguously related the existence of an arrest warrant for Rogers in Lycoming County. The circumstances surrounding Eiler's participation in Rogers' arrest are very similar to the circumstances in Capone and as a matter of law we find that it was objectively reasonable for Eiler to believe that probable cause existed for the arrest. Although the district court wrongly granted summary judgment as to Eiler on the basis of a finding of probable cause for the arrest, we will affirm the order on the alternative grounds that having participated in the unlawful arrest of Rogers, Eiler is nonetheless shielded from civil liability for the § 1983 claim by the doctrine of qualified immunity. See Williams v. Stone, 109 F.3d 890, 891 (3d Cir. 1997) (affirming the judgment of the district court, although on different grounds than those relied upon by the district court).
Our holding as to Eiler largely controls our analysis of qualified immunity for Powell and Stine. Powell and Stine acted on the basis of the statements made by Edwards and conveyed by the Lycoming County dispatcher Pfleegor, stating that Rogers needed to be transported to the _________________________________________________________________ 8. Despite our conclusions that the arrest of Rogers was unlawful and that Edwards is not shielded from liability by the doctrine of qualified immunity, we do not enter summary judgment for Rogers. The district court never ruled on Rogers' motion for summary judgment, and hence Rogers was not able to appeal the issue to this court. We recognize precedent which, broadly construed, suggests that we could appropriately enter summary judgment for Rogers in this instance. See Schmidt v. Farm Credit Services, 977 F.2d 511, 513 n.3 (10th Cir. 1992). However we decline to do so and instead remand the matter to the district court for decision in the first instance. 16 Lycoming County Prison pursuant to an arrest warrant. It was objectively reasonable for Powell and Stine to believe, on the basis of those statements, that probable cause existed for the arrest of Rogers. Thus, for the initial period of time that Powell and Stine held Rogers, they are protected from Rogers' § 1983 claim by the doctrine of qualified immunity. Powell and Stine do not enjoy qualified immunity, however, beyond the time at which assistant district attorney Butts communicated to them that there was no reason to hold Rogers in custody. Continuing to hold an individual in handcuffs once it has been determined that there was no lawful basis for the initial seizure is unlawful within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. See United States v. Shareef, 100 F.3d 1491, 1507 (10th Cir. 1996). Of course, we recognize the possibility of some additional basis, independent of that claimed to support the initial seizure, that could support an official continuing to hold an individual in handcuffs. However, no such basis exists here.9 As noted, Powell and Stine failed to remove the handcuffs from Rogers when they learned from their conversation with Butts that there was no basis for holding him, but rather detained him for an additional period time. For this reason they are not immunized from a § 1983 claim by Rogers regarding this final interval of time. Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part the district court's order granting summary judgment as to Powell and Stine. The precise length of the additional holding period cannot be determined from the evidence contained in the record and will have to be decided on remand.