On June 13, 2012, Chief Judge Kane entered judgment in favor of Defendant in part and in favor of Plaintiff in part. The genesis of this action was a traffic stop initiated by Defendant, a police officer, of a car in which Plaintiff was riding as a passenger. Plaintiff began recording the stop, and when Defendant noticed Plaintiff was recording Defendant seized Plaintiff’s camera and called a district attorney to inquire whether Plaintiff’s actions constituted a violation of the Pennsylvania Wiretap Act. The district attorney informed Defendant that he had probable cause to make an arrest, and Defendant arrested Plaintiff. It was later determined that Defendant did not have probable cause to effectuate an arrest. Accordingly, Plaintiff sued the police officer for violations of his Fourth Amendment rights in seizing the camera and placing him under arrest. The Court ultimately determined that because Defendant made a reasonably and in good faith relied on the district attorney’s advice in making the arrest, that he was entitled to qualified immunity on the Fourth Amendment claim arising from the arrest. The Court further determined, however, that Defendant was not entitled to qualified immunity for the seizure of the camera because he did not rely on a legal authority in taking that action and the law was clearly established that Plaintiff was not committing a violation of the Wiretap Act.
-
Recent Posts
Archives
Categories
Information for Litigants
Links of Interest
Middle District of PA in the News

