SMITH v. GONZALES
Annotate this Case
459 U.S. 1005 (1982)
U.S. Supreme Court
SMITH v. GONZALES , 459 U.S. 1005 (1982)
459 U.S. 1005
James Martin SMITH v. Douglas GONZALES et al
No. 82-145 Supreme Court of the United States November 8, 1982 Rehearing Denied Jan. 10, 1983. See U.S..
On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
The petition for writ of certiorari is denied.
Justice WHITE, dissenting.
The respondent police officer Lane went to the local district attorney's office with petitioner Smith's minor daughter, who averred that she had had sexual relations with her father. After hearing her story, an assistant district attorney swore out an affidavit and procured an arrest warrant from a judge. Lane, acting pursuant to the warrant, then arrested Smith on incest charges. After being tried and acquitted of these charges, Smith filed a 1983 damages action for deprivation of his constitutional rights, alleging, inter alia, that Lane's involvement in his arrest was malicious, harassing, and in bad faith. [Footnote 1] After a trial, a jury returned a verdict in favor of Lane. On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that the claim relating to the incest charges never should have gone to trial, but rather should have been dismissed. Assuming arguendo that Lane had, as alleged, acted maliciously by withholding evidence of Smith's innocence from the district attorney who obtained the arrest warrant,2 the court found that the officer was nevertheless insulated from 1983 liability, because "if the facts supporting an arrest are put before an intermediary such as a magistrate or grand jury, the intermediary's decision to issue a warrant or return an indictment breaks the causal chain ...." 670 F.2d 522, 526 ( CA5 1982).
The Fifth Circuit thus held that an officer cannot be liable even if, by wrongful means, he taints the independent judgment of the grand jury, magistrate, prosecutor, or other intermediary. This holding appears to conflict with statements of the courts in Smiddy v. Varney, 665 F.2d 261 ( CA9 1981), cert. denied, -- U.S. --, 73 L.Ed.2d -- (1982); Ames v. United States, 600 F.2d 183 (CA8 1979); and Dellums v. Powell, 184 U.S.App.D.C. 275, 566 F.2d 167, (1977), cert. denied, 438 U.S. 916, 98 S. Ct. 3146 (1978). The Ninth Circuit determined in Smiddy that an intermediary's independent decision breaks the causal chain and insulates the arresting officer from future liability if, but only if, the officer does not color the intermediary's independent judgment by, for example, exerting pressure or presenting false evidence. 665 F.2d, at 266- 267. The District of Columbia Circuit indicated in Dellums that pressure, undue influence, or knowing misstatements by the police could rebut the presumption of independent judgment by United States Attorneys and extend the "chain of causation." 566 F.2d, at 192-193. Likewise, the Eighth Circuit in Ames stated that "the presentation of false evidence or the withholding of evidence" might preclude an immunization of officers from tort liability. 600 F.2d, at 185. See also ALI, Restatement (2d) of Torts 653 (1977); W. Prosser, The Law of Torts 836-837 (4th ed. 1971).
The differing approaches to the causation problem are typified by three contrasting options in Rodriguez v. Ritchey, 556 F.2d 1185 (CA5 1977 ) (en banc) cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1047 ( 1978), which the court below in the present case purported to follow. The six plurality judges in Rodriguez reasoned that the defendant officers could not be liable for a wrongful arrest because an indictment by a properly-constituted grand jury "conclusively" determined the existence of probable cause. Id., at 1191 (opinion of Tjoflat, J.). Two specially concurring judges indicated that the plurality's rule might not be applicable should an officer "maliciously or in bad faith seek to obtain an indictment from a grand jury." [459 U.S. 1005 , 1007]
Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.