|
by Brian S. Batterton
Rodriguez v. Farrell, 280
F. 3d 1341 (11th Cir. 2002)
Chapman v. City of Atlanta, No. 05-15505, 2006 U.S. App.
LEXIS 20767 (August 14, 2006)
On January 20, 2002 the 11th Circuit Court
of Appeals held that, when the police have a valid warrant
to arrest someone,
but mistakenly arrest someone else due to a misidentification,
there is no constitutional violation, as long as the mistake
was reasonable. This holding stems from an incident that
took place in Florida on September 8, 1995. On that date,
at 12:10 a.m., police officers in Florida conducted a traffic
stop on a car that was driven by Patricia Foulkes. Joe John
Rodriguez, the plaintiff, was the sole passenger in the
car. After speaking with the driver, one officer discovered
methamphetamine in her purse. She was arrested.
At this time, the other officer, a
Sergeant, then began questioning Rodriguez and asked him
if he had any identification.
Rodriguez told the Sergeant that he had ID in his duffle
bag in the car, and he gave him consent to retrieve it.
The duffle bag contained Rodriguez’s Florida driver’s
license, social security card, birth certificate, military
discharge paperwork, a credit card, VA medical paperwork,
and a patient ID card. The Sergeant retrieved the Florida
driver’s license and conducted an NCIC check for warrants.
The dispatcher first advised the Sergeant that there were “no
wants or warrants” but shortly thereafter radioed
that there were three warrants for “Victor Heredia.” The
warrants listed an alias of “Joe Rodriguez” and
were for the charges of possession of cocaine, unlawful
use of a driver’s license, and driving with a suspended
license.
The court listed the following data for comparison between
the wanted suspect, Heredia, and the plaintiff, Rodriguez:
Victor Manuel Heredia a/k/a Joe Rodriguez
Male
White
DOB: 6/xx/xx; 7/xx/xx; 6/xx/xx (multiple) {dates removed
for publishing}
Place/Birth: New
York
SSN: 1XX-XX-XXX8; 1XX-XX-XXX8; 1XX-XX-XXX9 (multiple) {numbers
removed for publishing}
Tattoos:
4 tattoos: right forearm, left arm, right arm, back
Height:
5'6" Weight: 139 lbs.
Hair: Brown Eyes: Green
Scars: forehead
Residence: St. Augustine, Florida
Joe John Rodriguez
Male White
DOB: 3/xx/xx {dates removed for publishing}
Place/Birth: New York
SSN: 1XX-XX-XXX8 {numbers removed for publishing}
Tattoos: 6 tattoos: both biceps, both shoulder
blades; both ankles (none on right forearm)
Height: 5'11" Weight:
180 lbs. Hair: Brown Eyes: Brown
Scars: No Scar
Residence: Apopka, Florida
At this point the Sergeant approached
Rodriguez and questioned him about his height. Rodriguez
responded that he was “5’11” and
the Sergeant disagreed, believing he was shorter. The height
of the wanted person, Heredia, was listed a 5’6”.
The Sergeant also noted that Rodriguez had at least four
tattoos, two of which were in the locations listed in the
warrant. Based on this information, the Sergeant arrested
Rodriguez on the Heredia warrant. Rodriguez was transported
to the jail, where fingerprinting revealed that he was not,
in fact, Heredia. He was released within minutes of this
determination. He then filed suit under 42 U.S.C. §1983
for a violation of his 4th Amendment right to be free from
a warrantless arrest made without probable cause.
The Court noted that there were no
similar cases in the 11th Circuit to offer guidance or
precedent. The Court did
state that a warrantless arrest without probable cause would
form the basis for a 4th Amendment violation under 42 U.S.C. §1983.
However, they then, quoted from Hill v. California, and
stated “when the police have probable cause to arrest
one party, and when they reasonably mistake a second party
for the first party, then the arrest of the second party
is a valid arrest.” In surveying case law from other
Circuits, the Court found a case from the 7th Circuit in
which they applied this same “reasonable mistake” standard
to situations where police have a valid warrant but, because
of a reasonable mistake, arrest the wrong person under the
warrant due to a misidentification. The 11th Circuit Court
of Appeals has also stated that “a policeman’s
mistaken belief of fact can properly contribute to a probable
cause determination and can count just as much as correct
belief as long as the mistaken belief was reasonable in
light of all the circumstances.” Note that this is
for the purpose of determining whether there is §1983
liability and is not applicable to suppression of evidence
in a criminal case.
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals then
sought to determine if the arrest was based upon a “reasonable mistake” in
the Rodriguez case. The Court focused on the following relevant
similarities between Heredia and Rodriguez:
• They were the same age, sex,
and race;
• Joe Rodriguez was an alias
listed on the warrant for Heredia;
• Heredia had used multiple social security numbers
that were similar to Rodriguez’s;
• They had addresses from neighboring
towns;
• The were born in the same state;
and
• Rodriguez did not have fewer
tattoos than Heredia, many of which were in the same locations.
An additional factor the court considered was the fact
that Heredia was wanted for possession of illegal drugs
and Rodriguez was encountered in a vehicle whose driver
possessed illegal drugs.
Based upon the above similarities and
the totality of the circumstances, the Court held that
the officers in this
case made a reasonable mistake when they arrested Rodriguez
and thus committed no constitutional violation. The Court
went on to state that “there are limits on how much
independent investigation an officer must make before executing
an arrest warrant, even when the arrested person is asserting
a claim of mistaken identity.” Thus, the Court held
that the discrepancy of five inches in the height of Rodriguez
and Heredia would not demand that the officer not execute
the warrant, noting that the officers were in the field
when they made the determination to arrest Rodriguez. Rodriguez
appealed this case to the United States Supreme Court; however,
they refused to consider the case.
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals decided a case that reaffirmed
this ruling on August 14, 2006.
In this case, the plaintiff was arrested
on an outstanding warrant. The warrant was for a “Margaret Irene Chapman” who
was described as a black female, 5’4” tall and
210 pounds. The plaintiff was arrested at Hartsfield-Jackson
International Airport when she presented identification
that matched the description on the warrant including full
name, date of birth, and sex. Her social security number
matched except that the first two numbers were transposed.
The plaintiff was one inch taller and forty pounds lighter
than the description on the warrant. The Court noted that
there were many similarities and one significant difference.
This significant difference was that the plaintiff was a
white female and the warrant was for a black female. The
Court cited Rodriguez v. Farrell as precedent and held that, “given
the totality of the circumstances, the arrest was reasonable
even in the face of an obvious racial discrepancy.” The
facts that make up the totality of the circumstances in
this case were the following: the matching names, matching
dates of birth, virtually identical social security numbers,
and strikingly similar physical characteristics. Thus, the
Court held that one material difference will not transform
a reasonable arrest into an unreasonable arrest.
Citations:
Rodriguez v. Farrell, 280 F.3d 1341 (11th
Cir. 2002)
Ortega v. Christian, 85 F.3d 1521 (11th Cir. 1996)
401 U.S.
797, 802 (1971)
White v. Olig, 56 F.3d 817, 820 (7th Cir.
1995)
United States v. Gonzalez, 969 F.2d 999, 1006 (11th
Cir. 1992)
280 F.3d. 1341, 1349
Id. at 1348 (see Baker v. McCollan, 443
U.S. 137 (1979))
Id.
Rodriguez v. Farrell, 2003 U.S. LEXIS 1985 (March 10,
2003)
Chapman v. City of Atlanta, No. 05-15505, 2006 U.S.
App. LEXIS 20767 (August 14, 2006)
Id. at 2.
Id. at 5. (see also Johnson v. Miller, 680 F.2d
39, 42 (7th Cir. 1982)
Id. at 4.
Id. (citing Rodriguez v. Farrell, 280 F.3d 1341,
1347, 1348 (11th Cir. 2002))
|
|
