CARL JOSEPH MUNDY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF GEORGIA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, OFFICER D. C. BROWN, OF THE DEKALB COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial court properly directed a verdict for the defendant officer because sufficient probable cause existed for the arrest, precluding a Section 1983 claim.
Plaintiff was arrested and incarcerated for homicide and armed robbery, charges later dropped. He sued Officer Brown under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for unlawf…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Unlawful Arrest cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
In 1975, Carl Joseph Mundy was arrested and incarcerated for five-and-one-half months on charges of homicide and armed robbery that were later dropped. He subsequently brought this damage suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that his constitutional rights had been violated by his arrest and imprisonment. The suit was originally brought against the State of Georgia, DeKalb County, the Assistant District Attorney for DeKalb County, and Officer D. C. Brown of the DeKalb County Police Department. All defendants except Officer Brown were dismissed prior to trial.
After Mundy had presented his evidence at trial, the District Court, upon proper motion, directed a verdict in favor of defendant Brown. Mundy appeals, contending that he presented sufficient evidence that he had been arrested without probable cause and had been incarcerated in deliberate and malicious disregard of his constitutional rights for his case to go to the jury. After having carefully examined the trial transcript, we conclude that a jury verdict against Officer Brown would not have been warranted and therefore entry of the directed verdict against Mundy was proper. See generally Boeing Co. v. Shipman, 5 Cir., 1969, 411 F. 2d 365 (en banc); 9 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2524 (1971).
Mundy’s principal argument both at trial and on appeal is that a photographic array from which several witnesses identified him as one of two individuals involved in the murder/robbery was so impermissibly suggestive that the identifications could not constitutionally have been admitted against him in a criminal trial. Regardless of how meritorious that argument might be, however, the photographic identifications — together with other information that placed Mundy in the area of the crimes about the time they occurred — certainly provided Officer Brown with ample probable cause to swear out a warrant for his arrest. A police officer who arrests someone with probable cause or a valid warrant is not liable in a § 1983 suit for unlawful arrest. See Hunter v. Clardy, 5 Cir., 1977, 558 F. 2d 290; Perry v. Jones, 5 Cir., 1975, 506 F. 2d 778. Nor is that officer liable for any subsequent incarceration over which he no longer has any control.
AFFIRMED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Reeves v. City OF Jackson, 608 F.2d 644 (5th Cir. 1979)
-
Coffy v. Multi-County Narcotics Bureau, 600 F.2d 570 (6th Cir. 1979)
-
United States v. Maggitt, 778 F.2d 1029 (5th Cir. 1985)
Authorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- The Boeing Co. v. Shipman, 411 F.2d 365 (5th Cir. 1969)
- Melvin Perry and next friend v. Jones, 506 F.2d 778 (5th Cir. 1975)
- Hunter v. Clardy, 558 F.2d 290 (5th Cir. 1977)