|
楼主 |
发表于 2011-5-31 13:33:49
|
显示全部楼层
准备听证会,保存一些资料:
7 R1 K& o$ z& D' l2 O3 n- u0 M% O7 r
+ [! M1 Z: s) g! @9 [4 w) {MANGANIELLO v. CITY OF NEW YORK
( Q3 f; r0 @ S! @9 EDocket No. 09-0462.5 T- q6 s, }$ n& H3 V D
* J q V2 g7 h; r
) a( a' l) r0 {( G& R. C1 HA. Probable Cause* s6 W9 G6 ?* n* d
* r9 v# T- z$ U
Although the existence of probable cause must be determined with reference to the facts of each case, in general “[p]robable cause to arrest exists when the officers have knowledge of, or reasonably trustworthy information as to, facts and circumstances that are sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has been or is being committed by the person to be arrested.” Zellner, 494 F.3d at 368 (citing, e.g., Dunaway v.. New York, 442 U.S. 200, 208 n. 9 (1979); Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 479 (1963); Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 175-76 (1949)). Probable cause may also exist where the officer has relied on mistaken information, so long as it was reasonable for him to rely on it. See, e.g., Hill v. California, 401 U.S. 797, 803-04 (1971). However, “the failure to make a further inquiry when a reasonable person would have done so may be evidence of lack of probable cause.” Colon v. City of New York, 60 N.Y.2d 78, 82, 468 N.Y.S.2d 453, 455 (1983). The existence of probable cause must be determined by reference to the totality of the circumstances. See, e.g., Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983).6 v* {+ \, K2 X# t
v! V2 m: v; d% ~# z8 ]6 i( k: m3 N“[T]he existence of probable cause is a complete defense to a claim of malicious prosecution in New York,” Savino v. City of New York, 331 F.3d 63, 72 (2d Cir.2003), and “indictment by a grand jury creates a presumption of probable cause,” id. That presumption may be rebutted only “by evidence that the indictment was procured by ‘fraud, perjury, the suppression of evidence or other police conduct undertaken in bad faith.’ “ Id. (quoting Colon v. City of New York, 60 N.Y.2d at 83, 468 N.Y.S.2d at 456). Where there is some indication in the police records that, as to a fact crucial to the existence of probable cause, the arresting officers may have “lied in order to secure an indictment,” and “a jury could reasonably find that the indictment was secured through bad faith or perjury,” the presumption of probable cause created by the indictment may be overcome. Boyd v. City of New York, 336 F .3d 72, 77 (2d Cir.2003). “Like a prosecutor's knowing use of false evidence to obtain a tainted conviction, a police officer's fabrication and forwarding to prosecutors of known false evidence works an unacceptable ‘corruption of the truth-seeking function of the trial process.’ “ Ricciuti v. N.Y.C. Transit Authority, 124 F.3d 123, 130 (2d Cir.1997) (“Ricciuti ”) (quoting United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 104 (1976)).
5 _& L/ p. Z8 M4 a- ^" I) P0 \6 c2 S4 p& B$ A
& L3 w2 ]; w9 L( P2 L- s! X& W! ~# O" I( E3 E, R8 j
--------5 e+ y7 V# N; j7 ^3 [6 y
New York cases uphold awards of up to $10,000 for eve[n] short periods of confinement without proof of actual damages. See, e.g., Hallenbeck v. City of Albany, 99 A.D.2d 639, 472 N.Y.S.2d 187 (1984) ($10,000 for three hours); Woodard v. City of Albany, 81 A.D.2d 947, 439 N.Y.S.2d 701 (1981) ($7,500 for five hours); Guion v. Associated Dry Goods Corp., 56 A.D.2d 798, 393 N.Y.S.2d 8 (1977) ($10,000 for three hours), aff'd, 43 N.Y.2d 876, 403 N.Y.S.2d 465, 374 N.E.2d 364 (1978)., l9 i7 z5 p. I) G
# _( @' M: d. ?6 k/ ?! h* B0 M
--------
% w* I; O/ a" F. D1 w |
|