False Arrest

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Jose Garcia v. Shawn Posewitz

Case No.: 22-1124

Officials: Scudder, St. Eve, and Jackson-Akiwumi, Circuit Judges.

Focus: False Arrest

Cichocki contacted the police to inform them that her 15-year-old daughter, G.C., had been a victim of sexual assault by Garcia a few days prior at a resort where both families were on vacation. During her conversation with Detective Posewitz, Cichocki conveyed that G.C. had recounted an incident where Garcia intentionally touched her breasts and private area while they were in the pool with other children. The families continued their stay at the resort until the following day. Cichocki mentioned that G.C. might not recall all the specifics of the event and had expressed concern that any video evidence could potentially conflict with her statement. Detective Posewitz subsequently interviewed G.C. to gather her description of the events. However, the surveillance footage from the pool area was of poor quality and inconclusive, and despite the crowded setting, no witnesses were identified.

Assistant District Attorney (ADA) Spoentgen drafted a criminal complaint, which was reviewed by ADA Hoffman. Notably, the complaint did not reference the surveillance footage or the details provided by Cichocki. Despite this omission, the Court Commissioner determined that there was sufficient reason to authorize Garcia’s arrest. Subsequently, the court also found enough evidence to warrant proceeding to a trial. However, the trial was halted after ADA Hoffman’s opening statement, as the judge declared a mistrial due to Hoffman disclosing G.C.’s undisclosed learning disability.

In response to these events, Garcia filed a lawsuit against Detective Posewitz, ADA Hoffman, and ADA Spoentgen under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for false arrest. The Seventh Circuit upheld the decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the defendants, citing the principle of qualified immunity. The court concluded that a rational jury would not reasonably find that a reasonable law enforcement officer would have unmistakably recognized that the missing information in the complaint could invalidate the justification for probable cause. G.C.’s and Cichocki’s versions of the incident were largely consistent, and the defendants had no indications that either of them had a motive to provide false information.

Affirmed.

Decided 08/22/23

Full Text