|
|
|
|
Siana, Bellwoar & McAndrew, LLP Wins Major Victory for Police Officers!
1/15/2010
The police thought they had a would-be bank robber dead to rights. The judge in the criminal trial dismissed the charges after hearing the Commonwealth's evidence. The criminal defendant/plaintiff then sued the police officers, claiming they misrepresented and withheld evidence from the judge when applying for the arrest warrant. Discovery in the civil suit revealed that a confidential informant promised the criminal defendant sex and drugs in order to push him to commit the bank robbery.
After almost two years of discovery, the federal trial court recently granted the officer's Motion for Summary Judgment. The Motion was drafted by attorneys of Siana, Bellwoar & McAndrew, LLP.
In a lengthy 74-page opinion, the federal trial court exhaustively analyzed seven alleged misstatements of fact contained in the affidavits as well as 35 alleged omissions from the affidavits. The court concluded that none of the alleged misstatements or omissions were material to finding the existence of probable cause.
These types of claims are analyzed from the perspective of a reasonably objective officer and the facts available to the officer at the moment of arrest. The court affirmed the well settled principle that an officer is not obligated to include every single fact unearthed, or investigative procedure used, during the course of a criminal investigation.
Notwithstanding the outcome of the case, and the general statement of law noted above, police officers should take extreme care when drafting affidavits of probable cause to ensure that material facts are not misstated, and that all relevant and material facts are included in the affidavit of probable cause. A fact is relevant if a reasonable person would want to know about the fact when considering whether to sign the warrant. In a criminal investigation involving complex facts or details, or in a case where a question of law exists as to what facts should be included in an affidavit, it is highly recommended that the police officer consult with supervisors or the district attorney's office.
Teeple v. Cahill, et al., Civ. Act. No. 07-2976 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 22, 2009).
|
|
|