The Indiana Court of Appeals decided the case of Appellate Opinions” href=”http://www.ai.org/judiciary/opinions/pdf/09300511pdm.pdf”>Row v. Holt (pdf) which involved appeal from a grant of summary judgment to a police officer on a civil claim for false arrest and imprisonment. The case involved investigation of an altercation between two sides that had been at each other for awhile. During the altercation, the Plaintiff admittedly shoved the “victim” — but there is a good chance the shove could have been retaliatory in nature. The victim filled out an affidavit of battery with bodily injury and the officer arrested the Plaintiff after going over to the Plaintiff’s residence and speaking with him but without much in the way of further investigation. I only read it once, and quickly at that, but the Court of Appeals seems to be holding that because there is some doubt about whether the Plaintiff or the “victim” was telling the truth and because the police officer arrested the Plaintiff essentially on nothing more than the sworn, yet self-serving, statement of the “victim,” there was a material question of fact as to whether the police officer had probably cause to make the arrest. I tend to agree with the dissent that this decision encourages a whole lot of second guessing of police officers who have to make these decisions based on spotty information.
As for the police, I suppose that if in doubt, they should do nothing. If the situation escalates and someone gets killed, the police probably aren’t liable. But, if they act quickly but based on imperfect information, there is a good chance they’ll have to roll the dice with a jury to see whether, with the benefit of hindsight, the jury thinks the police officer made the correct decision.
Leave a Reply