Court Opinion

ID: 9478574
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 06:52:16.282541+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:46:29.943597
License: Public Domain

HEANEY, Circuit Judge,
dissenting, with whom LAY, Chief Judge, and ARNOLD and McMILLIAN, Circuit Judges, join.
I respectfully dissent. The majority holds that Police Officer Myers had probable cause as a matter of law to arrest Warren for attempted burglary. It reaches this conclusion — even though Officer Myers conceded in district court that she did not have probable cause to make such an arrest, even though the case was tried in district court on the theory that no probable cause existed, and even though the issue of probable cause was not presented to this Court on the initial appeal. In light of these facts, and the fact that a reasonable jury could find that probable cause did not exist, this Court is without the authority to hold that there was probable cause to arrest Warren for attempted burglary. For these reasons, as well as those stated in my original opinion, I would reverse and remand.
The existence of probable cause in section 1983 actions constitutes a question of fact for the jury, not this Court, to decide. We, along with several other circuits, have recognized that the question of probable cause in a section 1983 action belongs to the trier of fact. “[I]n civil rights actions of this nature, where a genuine issue of fact on the existence of probable cause for arrest is presented, the question should be submitted to the jury.” Giordano v. Lee, 434 F.2d 1227, 1230 (8th Cir.1970), cert. denied, 403 U.S. 931, 91 S.Ct. 2250, 29 L.Ed.2d 709 (1971), citing Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970); Anderson v. Haas, 341 *1443F.2d 497 (3d Cir.1965); and Marland v. Heyse, 315 F.2d 312 (10th Cir.1963). This rule was reaffirmed by this Court in Linn v. Garcia, 531 F.2d 855 (8th Cir.1976), in which we stated:
Where the facts are in dispute or where they are subject to different inferences, the question of probable cause is for the jury; however, where the facts are not disputed or are susceptible to only one reasonable inference, the question is one of law for the court.
Id. at 861.
The task of determining whether probable cause to arrest exists as a matter of law in section 1983 actions is different than a similar determination in the context of a direct review of a criminal arrest. McKenzie v. Lamb, 738 F.2d 1005, 1007 (9th Cir.1984). Justice Kennedy, writing for the Ninth Circuit, stated:
In the latter situation, we are called upon to review both law and fact and to draw the line as to what is and is not reasonable behavior. * * * By contrast, in a § 1983 action the factual matters underlying the judgment of reasonableness generally mean that probable cause is a question for the jury * * *.
Id. at 1007-08 (citations omitted).
Thus, a finding that probable cause existed as a matter of law is appropriate “only if no reasonable jury could find that the officers did or did not have probable cause to arrest.” Id.; see also, Lester v. City of Chicago, 830 F.2d 706, 715 (7th Cir.1987) (question of whether police had probable cause to arrest plaintiff for disorderly conduct was properly submitted to jury); B.C.R. Transport Co., Inc. v. Fontaine, 727 F.2d 7, 10 (1st Cir.1984) (“[Wjhether or not probable cause exists in any given case invariably depends on the particular facts and circumstances of that case, a question to be resolved by the trier of fact.”); Deary v. Three Un-named Police Officers, 746 F.2d 185, 191 (3d Cir.1984) (ultimate fact of probable cause to arrest plaintiff for bank robbery was for jury to decide); Bilbrey by Bilbrey v. Brown, 738 F.2d 1462, 1467 (9th Cir.1984) (if reasonable persons might reach different conclusions about the facts, the establishment of probable cause is for the jury, upon a proper instruction about the law); Reeves v. City of Jackson, Miss., 608 F.2d 644, 650 (5th Cir.1979) (probable cause for arrest constitutes jury question as jury could have found that officers had no cause to arrest plaintiff for public intoxication).
The Third Circuit, in Deary, dealt with the precise issue taken up by the majority in this case. It wrote:
[W]e are here required to decide whether summary judgment in Deary’s case could properly have been granted on the issue of probable cause. That is, taking all of Deary’s allegations as true and resolving all inferences in her favor, whether a reasonable jury could find that the police officers could not have reasonably believed that Deary committed the City Bank robbery, i.e., did not have probable cause for her arrest. Like the Patzig [v. O’Neil, 577 F.2d 841 (3d Cir.1978)] case, we too are faced with substantial circumstantial evidence which would sustain a finding of probable cause: the alleged similarity in appearance and resemblance in physical characteristics of Deary to the suspect pictured in the bank surveillance photographs, as well as Deary’s appearance of flight from the arresting officers on the day of her arrest.
Nevertheless, despite considerable evidence which, in our view, would lead to a finding of probable cause, in light of Patzig, we cannot say that the trial judge, on the record before him, could summarily decide the issue of probable cause. To the extent that the presence or absence of probable cause depended on the resemblance of Deary to the bank surveillance photographs taken at the time of the robbery, the question necessarily becomes a factual one for jury determination. Nor does the fact that Deary’s physical characteristics resembled that of the woman who robbed the bank change our conclusion that those facts, too, were for jury consideration. Moreover, even though Deary concedes that she was “jogging” when the officers apprehended her, whether that activity gave the reasonable perception of flight *1444is also a matter which must be left to the judgment of the jury to take into account together with such considerations as the speed at which she was “jogging” (running), her overall demeanor, and the other aspects of her appearance.
To grant judgment for the defendant police officers at this juncture, therefore, would be to usurp the role which a jury must play in fact finding — here, determining the ultimate fact of probable cause or the lack of it.
Deary v. Three Unnamed Police Officers, 746 F.2d at 191 (footnotes omitted).
In light of these cases, it is clear that an appellate court can find probable cause for an arrest in a section 1983 case in only two circumstances: 1) when there are no factual disputes surrounding the arrest; and 2) when reasonable persons, in the fair exercise of judgment, could not draw different inferences from those facts.
This Court cannot say that there are no issues of disputed fact in this case because the probable cause issue was conceded at trial and Warren had no opportunity to develop any facts relating to this defense.
If we ignore this important consideration and consider all the facts as presently developed in the light most favorable to Warren, I believe a reasonable jury could find that no probable cause existed to arrest Warren for attempted burglary.
First, the police officers involved in Warren’s arrest and detention testified at trial that they did not have sufficient objective facts on which to base a probable cause finding. Myers testified that she only had a “reasonable suspicion” that Warren had attempted burglary that morning. Detective Breen similarly conceded at trial that, even after detaining and questioning Warren, the police had no probable cause to arrest him. If the police officers participating in the arrest could reach a conclusion different from that of the majority of this Court, it only demonstrates the need to submit the question to a jury.
Second, the description of the suspect was too general to constitute reliable objective evidence. Warren matched the victim’s general description of the alleged intruder: a thin, white male, in his twenties, wearing a light-colored short-sleeved shirt. Yet, Dean Leitner, Chief of Police for the City of Lincoln, testified at trial that this description was not sufficient in and of itself to take an individual into custody because “that would fit hundreds of thousands of people.” (T. 164). Although Warren did not have the opportunity to develop this line of questioning at trial, it is quite possible that the factual circumstances surrounding the attempted break-in would lead a jury to discount the reliability of the victim’s statements. The record also indicates that another white male was sitting in a car near the general area where the police dog was tracking (T. 244), yet no explanation was given as to why Warren was detained for questioning while the other man was not. (T. 326).
Third, the dog track was of questionable reliability. The majority makes much of the fact that the police dog, hot on the intruder’s scent, “led the officers to Warren’s car.” The majority, however, places more reliance on the dog’s ability to hold a track in a residential area than the officers on the scene. Officer Jeffrey Alexander, the officer handling the police dog, testified that he did not feel he could arrest Warren based solely on the track. He stated that car exhaust, gasoline, any number of other chemicals and the scent of another human being interfere with the dog’s ability to track. (T. 446). Thus, with further factual development, a jury could reasonably conclude that the dog had lost the scent of the intruder. Because there was another person in the same general area, a jury could also reasonably conclude that the dog track was inconclusive as to Warren’s culpability.
Finally, the majority points to the fact that Warren attempted to leave the area when he saw a police officer. Warren explained at trial that he started to turn his car around because there were a lot of police cars at the corner of 20th and C Streets, and he wanted to avoid “the mess.” (T. 15). As stated in the Deary case, whether this activity gave the reasonable perception of flight is a matter which must be left to the judgment of the jury.
*1445These facts, taken as a whole, are not susceptible of only one inference. A jury could reasonably draw the conclusion that the description of the intruder was too general, the dog track too unreliable, and the attempt to leave the area too ambiguous to constitute objective evidence of probable cause.1
In section B of its opinion, the majority states, “We thus must determine whether the facts available to the officers objectively gave rise to probable cause to arrest Warren for attempted burglary.” Assuming, without deciding, that this objective standard is appropriate, it remains clear that it is not for this Court to sit as fact-finder, as the majority clearly does.2
In light of the fact that we cannot nor should not say that probable cause existed as a matter of law, this Court should refuse to consider the issue raised by the appellees for the first time in its brief on rehearing en banc.3 If the majority feels compelled to reach the probable cause issue, the most it should do is remand the matter to the district court with directions for a new trial, at which time both parties would have an opportunity to present evidence on the issue. The district court then should submit the issue to the jury with appropriate instructions unless it found the evidence insufficient to create a jury question.
The appellees asked this Court to reverse the panel decision on the issue of pretextual arrest and qualified immunity. As the majority does not rest its decision on either of these legal theories, I will not repeat my discussion in the panel opinion, except to say that I continue to believe that it correctly states the law in this Circuit.
I must, however, comment on Neb.Stat. Rev. § 29-427 and the appellees’ interpretation of it.
Neb.Rev.Stat. § 29-427 provides in pertinent part:
Peace officer; grounds for arrest; detention of accused; grounds. Any peace officer having grounds for making an arrest may take the accused into custody or, already having done so, detain him further when the accused fails to identify himself satisfactorily, or refuses to sign the citation, or when the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that * * * (3) such action is necessary in order to carry out legitimate investigative functions * * *.
Nev.Rev.Stat. § 29-427 (1983).
Appellees argue that, even if they had no probable cause to arrest Warren for attempted burglary, section 29-427(3) gave them the authority to make an arrest based on the traffic warrant and to detain Warren for questioning with regard to the separate crime of attempted burglary. Not only is such an interpretation contrary to the plain language of the statute, but it also renders the statute unconstitutional.
As I read this statute, a police officer may detain anyone legally arrested if the officer reasonably believes it necessary to *1446further investigate that person’s role in the crime for which he was arrested. It does not grant police the power to make a legal arrest and to detain that person for questioning with regard to a separate crime when there is no probable cause to make an arrest for that crime. Neither the language of provision (3) nor the overall tenor of the statute warrants such a sweeping interpretation.
Furthermore, the appellees' interpretation would render Neb.Rev.Stat. § 29-427 unconstitutional. Police are not permitted to hold someone in custody beyond the time necessary to process him with respect to the crime of arrest for the sole purpose of trying to connect that person to another crime. To do so is an unlawful seizure. See Adams v. United States, 399 F.2d 574 (D.C.Cir.1968), cert. denied sub nom. Roots v. United States, 393 U.S. 1067, 89 S.Ct. 722, 21 L.Ed.2d 710 (1969). In Adams, individuals arrested for a robbery, brought to the Robbery Squad offices at Police Headquarters at 2:00 p.m. and booked at 4:00 p.m., were then put in lineups for other crimes as to which there was no probable cause to arrest or to detain them. The court excluded the results of the lineups as the incident of an unlawful arrest and custody for interrogation. The court explained:
Here, the lawful basis for appellants’ arrest and detention rested solely on the probable cause for the belief that they had committed an attempted robbery on November 5 at the North Carolina Avenue store. There was no probable cause to detain them under arrest for other matters. Rule 5(a) provides that presentment without unnecessary delay shall be made on the charge for which they were arrested. To continue their custody without presentment for the purpose of trying to connect them with other crimes is to hold in custody for investigation only, and that is illegal; its operative effect is essentially the same as a new arrest and, if not supported by probable cause, it is an illegal detention.
* * # # # *
On the precise facts shown by this record, we think the effect of Rule 5(a) is to convert at least as of 4:00 P.M. on the afternoon of appellants’ arrest, their continued detention at the police station into an unlawful arrest without probable cause in respect of the crime for which they were convicted.
♦ * * * * *
An arrest made on probable cause can bring a man lawfully into the hands of police, but that detention does not, absent compliance with Rule 5(a), continue to be lawful for all purposes, including the investigation of his possible connection with other crimes.
399 F.2d at 577-78 (footnotes omitted); see United States v. Poole, 495 F.2d 115, 125 (D.C.Cir.1974) (Leventhal, J., concurring) (unnecessary delay after arrest is evidence of involuntariness), cert. denied, 422 U.S. 1048, 95 S.Ct. 2667, 45 L.Ed.2d 701 (1975); Commonwealth v. Lumb, 288 Pa.Super. 11, 430 A.2d 1188, 1190 (1981).
The words of former Chief Justice, then Judge Burger, in his concurring opinion are instructive:
To my mind, the importance of the investigation of crimes other than that for which the original arrest was made is not that there may be something resembling a new “arrest,” but that the period of “unnecessary delay” forbidden by Fed.R.Crim.P. 5(a) has then been reached. Necessary delay can reasonably relate to time to administratively process an accused with booking, fingerprinting and other steps and sometimes even to make same limited preliminary investigation into his connection with the crime for which he was arrested, especially when it is directed to possible exculpation of the one arrested. However, when delay of presentment to the magistrate is for the purpose of investigation of other crimes, then there is no doubt that the “delay” has become “unnecessary.”
Adams v. United States, 399 F.2d at 579 (Burger, J., concurring) (emphasis in original).
I believe that holding a person beyond that time necessary to process him for the *1447crime for which he was arrested in order to investigate that person’s role in other crimes constitutes an unlawful seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Where a statute is susceptible of two constructions, under one of which the statute is valid, while under the other it is unconstitutional or of doubtful validity, the Nebraska Supreme Court will adopt the construction which gives the statute validity. State v. Evans, 215 Neb. 433, 338 N.W.2d 788, 793 (1983). As appellees’ version of Neb.Rev.Stat § 29-427 violates the Fourth Amendment, I believe the Nebraska Supreme Court would adopt the interpretation which limits investigatory detention to situations where police need to investigate the detainee’s role in the crime for which he was arrested. Thus, any detention beyond the time necessary to process Warren with respect to the traffic warrant for the purpose of investigating the attempted burglary is not justifiable under Neb.Rev.Stat. § 29-427 and would constitute an unlawful seizure based solely on reasonable suspicion of the sort prohibited in Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200, 99 S.Ct. 2248, 60 L.Ed.2d 824 (1979). and Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983).4

. The cases cited by the majority as support are inapposite, as they are cases in which courts had to directly review criminal arrests. None of the cases involved factual determinations by an appellate court in section 1983 suits.

. In section C of the opinion, the majority concludes that probable cause existed to warrant Warren’s arrest for attempted burglary. The majority does not say that probable cause exists because the facts are susceptible to only one reasonable inference. Thus, its conclusion can only be categorized as a statement of fact.

. The Supreme Court of the United States has stated that ”[t]he matter of what questions may be taken up and resolved for the first time on appeal is one left primarily to the discretion of the courts of appeals, to be exercised on the facts of individual cases.” Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 121, 96 S.Ct. 2868, 2877, 49 L.Ed.2d 826 (1976) (federal appellate court is justified in resolving an issue where the proper resolution is beyond any doubt, or where an injustice might otherwise result). In Singleton, the Supreme Court chastised this Court, however, for addressing an issue on the merits when one party had had no opportunity to develop or defend its position on the issue at the trial level. Id. This Court has held, as a general rule, that we will not consider arguments or theories on appeal that were not advanced in proceedings below, unless the issue can be resolved as a matter of law, the pertinent record has been fully developed, and the opposing party had notice that the specific issue would be raised. Wright v. Newman, 735 F.2d 1073, 1076 (8th Cir.1984).

. The normal procedure for processing a person who fails to appear for a traffic violation entails taking him to a correction officer, booking him, setting bond and releasing him promptly upon payment of bond. The jury should have been instructed that if Warren was held beyond the time necessary to process him, then the detention was an unlawful one.