Facts

On April 13, 2010, at approximately 2 a.m., sheriff's deputies were chasing a white male driving a white Ford Taurus. The suspect eluded the deputies. While searching for the suspect, they found a white Taurus in plaintiff William A. Elliott's driveway. Believing it was the suspect's vehicle, a deputy approached the home and was granted permission to enter. The deputy identified plaintiff as the white male he had been chasing, and arrested him.

The criminal case against plaintiff was dismissed prior to trial. After the case against plaintiff was dismissed, plaintiff filed a single cause of action for violation of civil rights against the involved deputies claiming he was falsely arrested.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
While the deputies were in plaintiff's home, plaintiff's mother, who granted the deputies permission to enter the home, told the officers that her son was home all night. She noted that the car hood was cool to the touch and that the car was clean. The inferences from the mother's statements were that all of these facts tended to show that the deputies might not have identified the same white Taurus. Later, plaintiff's girlfriend claimed that she was with plaintiff until late the prior evening.

Plaintiff claimed that the sheriff's deputy who arrested him knew that he was arresting the wrong man, but did so to cover up his failure to apprehend the real suspect. Since plaintiff alleged there was no probable cause to arrest him, his arrest violated his civil rights.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The sheriff's deputies contended that they had probable cause to believe that plaintiff was the man they were chasing that night and, in turn, had committed multiple crimes. Moreover, the totality of the circumstances would have led a reasonable officer in the situation to believe that a crime had been committed. Finally, even if plaintiff was not the perpetrator, given the undisputed evidence presented to the officers on the scene a reasonable officer in the position of these officers would not have known that arresting plaintiff violated his civil rights.

The criminal case against plaintiff was dismissed without any explanation as to why it was being dismissed.

Result

Summary judgment for the defense.

Other Information

An appeal is pending. FILING DATE: Aug. 8, 2011.