From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Thompson v. Prince William County

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Jan 31, 1985
753 F.2d 363 (4th Cir. 1985)

Summary

In Thompson v. Prince William County, 753 F.2d 363 (4th Cir. 1985), this Court found that probable cause supported an arrest warrant for Lisa Ann Thompson, even though—as it turned out—she was the wrong person.

Summary of this case from Smith v. Munday

Opinion

No. 84-6103.

Argued November 2, 1984.

Decided January 31, 1985.

Carleton Penn, III, Fairfax, Va. (Joseph L. Duvall, Duvall, Blackburn, Hale Downey, Fairfax, Va., on brief), for appellant.

Stephen A. MacIsaac, Asst. County Atty., Arlington, Va. (James A. Welch, Welch, Murphy Welch, Wheaton, Md., John H. Foote, County Atty., Arlington, Va., on brief), for appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.


Not every mix-up in the issuance of an arrest warrant, even though it leads to the arrest of the wrong person with attendant inconvenience and humiliation, automatically constitutes a constitutional violation for which a remedy may be sought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Lisa Ann Thompson, regrettably, was the victim of a misidentification with most unfortunate consequences. An undercover police agent for the Prince William, Virginia, County Police Department, made a purchase on September 18, 1982 of marijuana from a woman identified to him as "Lisa". He had observed Lisa earlier driving through the parking lot of a restaurant. At that time he recorded the car's license plate number. Upon purchasing the marijuana, the undercover officer ran the license plate number through a department of motor vehicle computer which supplied the information that the owner was Lisa Ann Thompson.

Furthermore, a bouncer at the restaurant, a police informant himself, told the undercover officer that the woman he had seen driving the car was named Lisa. The undercover agent, following standard police department procedure, waited from September 18, 1982 until February 28, 1983, endeavoring to complete accumulation of information requisite to the seeking of a warrant. He then applied for and was successful in obtaining an arrest warrant. Two traffic citations for Lisa Ann Thompson had been obtained, and it was from them that an accurate description of her appearing in the warrant application was derived.

In the regular course, on March 7, 1983 the warrant was placed in the hands of another officer for execution. Knowing nothing of the prior investigation or the basis for the warrant, he located Lisa Ann Thompson and placed her under arrest. Brought to the county police department, she was processed and released. Information concerning that arrest became public, and prominently displayed newspaper stories appeared.

Thereafter, on April 15, 1983, the day of Lisa Ann Thompson's first court appearance, the undercover agent, on seeing her, realized that she was not the person from whom he had purchased marijuana. The Commonwealth's attorney was so informed and all charges were dismissed.

While there are details which with hindsight might have alerted the undercover agent or the officer serving the warrant that Lisa Ann Thompson might not be the person sought, it simply demands too much to expect police officers, on the basis of slight discrepancies of height (5' 5" as against 5' 7") and weight or in color of eyes (blue versus brown) and hair (blond as opposed to brown), to abandon obtention or execution of a warrant on someone who, for other strong indications (identity of first name, confirmation of the first name by a police informant, close connection with vehicle registered in Lisa Ann Thompson's name), meets the warrant's description. We are satisfied that under the totality of the circumstances there was probable cause to support application for and execution of the warrant, and that the warrant was valid. See Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 230-39, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 2328-32, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983). On those grounds the case instituted by Lisa Ann Thompson under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was properly dismissed against all defendants.

Most immediately, the undercover agent and the officer serving the warrant properly were granted summary judgment. Furthermore, the County, the County Executive, and the Chief of Police were not actors in the unfolding drama. Since respondeat superior is not applicable in actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, they could have been held liable only upon the demonstration of a custom, practice or policy to whose development they had in any way contributed. Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). In all events, the culpability of either the undercover agent or the police officer who served the warrant was indispensable to a recovery against the County, the County Executive and the Chief of Police.

Additionally, there were John Doe defendants, that is, unnamed officers of the Prince William County Police Department. Nothing demonstrated any grounds suggesting § 1983 liability for any other Prince William County Police Department member.

The district court, once it had determined, at the summary judgment stage, that the § 1983 claim should be dismissed, properly exercising its discretion, under Sigmon v. Poe, 564 F.2d 1093, 1096 (4th Cir. 1977) was altogether justified in declining to assume pendent jurisdiction over state claims for assault and battery, false arrest, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, malicious prosecution, negligence, libel, slander, invasion of privacy, and gross negligence. There were, of course, no independent diversity jurisdiction grounds, and, the federal claim having been finally disposed of prior to trial, the district judge acted well within his discretion.

The judgment below is, accordingly,

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Thompson v. Prince William County

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Jan 31, 1985
753 F.2d 363 (4th Cir. 1985)

In Thompson v. Prince William County, 753 F.2d 363 (4th Cir. 1985), this Court found that probable cause supported an arrest warrant for Lisa Ann Thompson, even though—as it turned out—she was the wrong person.

Summary of this case from Smith v. Munday

In Thompson, the police officer used multiple methods to establish the arrestee's identity, and he himself (mistakenly) identified her as the woman he purchased drugs from. Though in error, he connected the woman he arrested to the crime by his own identification of her as a co-participant in the transaction.

Summary of this case from Smith v. Munday

arresting officer had no knowledge of underlying investigation and application for otherwise facially valid warrant

Summary of this case from Smith v. Munday

In Thompson v. Prince William County, 753 F.2d 363 (4th Cir.1985), the Fourth Circuit addressed the case of Lisa Ann Thompson, who had been mistakenly arrested for drug trafficking.

Summary of this case from Lucas v. Shively

In Thompson, the Fourth Circuit found the arresting officer, who, like Defendant Pacileo, did not request the arrest warrant, had probable cause, under the totality of the circumstances, to execute the facially valid warrant.Id. at 365 (citing Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 230-39 (1983); see also Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 557 (1967) (holding that the defenses of good faith and probable cause are applicable to § 1983 claims).

Summary of this case from Belcher v. Pacileo

In Thompson, an undercover drug investigation supplied information necessary for an arrest warrant of a person originally identified as "Lisa," who was later identified (incorrectly) during the investigation as "Lisa Ann Thompson."

Summary of this case from Joye v. Richland County
Case details for

Thompson v. Prince William County

Case Details

Full title:LISA ANN THOMPSON, APPELLANT, v. PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY; ROBERT S. NOE…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Date published: Jan 31, 1985

Citations

753 F.2d 363 (4th Cir. 1985)

Citing Cases

Lucas v. Shively

Hunter, 502 U.S. at 228, 112 S.Ct. 534. Finally, it is well established that “[n]ot every mix-up in the…

Joye v. Richland County

"[S]ufficient probability, not certainty, is the touchstone of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment. . .…