January 22, 2010 : Prosecutor, Detectives Entitled to Immunity in Section 1983 Action
A federal court judge in Philadelphia dismissed a Section 1983 lawsuit against a prosecutor and police detectives after ruling that the defendants were entitled to immunity for their actions.
In 2006, a local police department received a tip from an informant that the plaintiff was planning to rob a bank and use that same informant as a getaway driver. The police conducted surveillance of the plaintiff and recorded the informant having conversations with the plaintiff regarding the robbery. The robbery was planned on at least three occasions and each time the plaintiff would cancel the plans. Ultimately, an affidavit of probable cause was prepared and approved by a Magistrate Judge. The plaintiff was arrested and charged with criminal solicitation to commit robbery. He was incarcerated for more than three months because he could not make bail. The criminal case proceeded to trial; at the conclusion of the prosecution’s case the defense moved for an acquittal and the motion was granted by the criminal trial judge.
The plaintiff thereafter filed a 1983 action against certain police officers and the handling prosecutor, claiming that he had been entrapped and, as a result of being imprisoned, he had suffered mental and physical injuries.
The plaintiff alleged that the informant was giving him drugs and feeding his addiction and that the only reason why he had any conversations with the informant was because the informant wanted to commit the robbery and had promised him drugs if he went along. Additionally, the plaintiff alleged that there were more than 40 pieces of information that should have been included in the affidavit of probable cause and were intentionally omitted and kept from the Magistrate. He alleged that had the Magistrate been aware of that information, there would not have been a determination of probable cause.
The defendants filed motions for summary judgment on the grounds that the law enforcement officials were entitled to either absolute or qualified immunity because probable cause had existed to effectuate the plaintiff’s arrest. Counsel also argued that the items the plaintiff wanted included in the affidavit would not affect the probable cause that existed.
In a December 22, 2009 decision, Judge Eduardo Robreno granted all of the defendants' motions. The plaintiff’s demand prior to motion practice was $800,000.
The prosecutor and one of the detectives were represented by Weber Gallagher partners Joseph Goldberg and Michael B. Pullano.