Anthony Brown v. City of Miami
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Fla., Case No.: 08-22798-Civ-Jordan

Civil Rights Complaint Dismissed.  In 1996, the Plaintiff was tried and convicted of committing a burglary in 1994, and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment. The victim identified Plaintiff as the intruder. The Plaintiff’s fingerprint was found in the victim’s apartment. Plaintiff alleged that he was denied his right to due process under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), based on the failure of the City to preserve, evaluate, and disclose to him potentially exculpatory evidence regarding the identity of a man known to him as “Spanny.” Allegedly, Plaintiff only entered the apartment because “Spanny” invited the Plaintiff in, and because he believed that the apartment belonged to “Spanny.” Plaintiff sued the City, ASA David Paulus, former ASA Mark Shapiro, and MPD Officer Depena in 2008. On the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, raising the issue of the statute of limitations, the Court dismissed the complaint as time barred ruling that “the statute of limitations for a s. 1983 action begins to run from the date ‘the facts which would support a cause of action are apparent or should be apparent to a person with reasonably prudent regard for his rights.’” Since, Plaintiff knew at least at the time of trial in 1996 that the police had let “Spanny” go without investigating him, and without getting any information that could be used to find “Spanny”, Plaintiff’s claim, filed over 22 years later, was time barred.

Posted 6/2009

Jermaine Willison Atterbury v. Miami Police Department, et al.
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No.: 08-15519

Final Summary Judgment for Miami Police Department Officer Upheld. Plaintiff, an armed robbery suspect, was implicated in the crime by an accomplice, positively identified by the victim, and arrested by a Miami Detective.  After over a year of pretrial detention, the State Attorney nol prossed the charges. Plaintiff sued the Miami Police Department, the lead robbery detective, and the responding officer individually for false arrest and malicious prosecution. The Miami Police Department and the responding officer were dismissed early in the litigation. After a summary judgment motion was filed on behalf of the robbery detectives, the Magistrate Judge recommended that qualified immunity be denied to the robbery detective, and that the case proceed to trial. Upon review by the District Judge, the Court determined that, not only was the robbery detective entitled to qualified immunity, but also that there was actual probable cause for the arrest. Thus final summary judgment was entered in favor of the robbery detective, and the case was closed. Plaintiff appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals which upheld the summary judgment in favor of the robbery detective. The Court of Appeals specifically determined that the robbery detective had actual probable cause as the evidence was “more than sufficient” to warrant a reasonable belief that Plaintiff committed an armed robbery. Therefore, the Court affirmed the entitlement of qualified immunity for the robbery detective.
 

Posted 4/2009