Court Declines To Extend Biggers To Damages Claim For Suggestive Pre-Arrest Identification
PHILLIPS v. ALLEN (February 10, 2012)
Ruby Graham and her mother Elizabeth were attacked as they entered the Bellwood, Illinois Library. The attacker stole $5,000 from Ruby and shot both of them. Ruby gave police a description of their attacker. A police officer visited Elizabeth in the hospital the following day to question her. Ruby and a neighbor were there at the same time. The neighbor informed the officer of the rumor that Wydrick Phillips, who lived in same neighborhood, was robbing people after they cashed tax refund checks. Later that same day, Ruby positively identified Phillips as her attacker from a group of photographs at the police station. Phillips was arrested and charged but later acquitted. There was no corroborating evidence and significant exculpatory evidence, including an alibi. Phillips brought suit under § 1983, complaining that he had been arrested without probable cause. Judge Dow (N.D. Ill.) granted summary judgment to the defendants. Phillips appeals.
In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Chief Judge Easterbrook and Circuit Judges Posner and Wood affirmed. Phillips' principal argument on appeal is that Ruby's photo identification was unreliable given her presence earlier in the hospital room when the neighbor repeated the rumor about Phillips. The problem is that Phillips relies principally on Biggers, which addressed the admissibility of evidence at trial. It held that photo spread identification evidence could not be used at trial if it was the result of an unduly suggestive procedure. The Court considered both the law and the psychology behind witness identifications in rejecting Phillips' request to extend Biggers from the trial phase to the arrest phase and from a rule of evidence to a basis for damages. The Court also commented that Phillips would not benefit even if it decided to accept his invitation to extend Biggers. The defendants would certainly be entitled to qualified immunity for their past actions.
Michael Rigney practices in the law offices of GVC Ltd. in Chicago. In this blog, he reports on select