No. 20-1771

Charles Simonson v. Borough of Taylor, Pennsylvania, et al.

Lower Court: Third Circuit
Docketed: 2021-06-22
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Tags: circuit-conflict circuit-split criminal-procedure domestic-violence due-process independent-investigation probable-cause warrantless-arrest witness-statement
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity FourthAmendment DueProcess CriminalProcedure
Latest Conference: 2021-09-27
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the court of appeals erred when it did not require independent corroboration of an estranged-divorcing wife's allegations that her husband attempted to kill her before making a warrantless, nonjudicial approved arrest when the allegations were five (5) days old?

Question Presented (from Petition)

QUESTION PRESENTED The Third Circuit held that probable cause can be based solely on the statements of a victim and an alleged 1 % hour investigation that failed to include interviewing any witnesses. Simonson v. Borough of Taylor, 839 Fed. Appx. 735, 736 (8d Cir. 2020). In contrast, the Ninth and Seventh Circuits require more evidence than just a victim’s statement to find probable cause to make an arrest. “In establishing probable cause, officers may not solely rely on the claim of a citizen witness that he was a victim of a crime, but must independently investigate the basis of the witness' knowledge or interview other witnesses.” Arpin v. Santa Clara Valley Transp. Agency, 261 F.3d 912, 925 (9th Cir. 2001). Similarly, the Seventh Circuit requires “[a] police officer may not close her or his eyes to facts that would help clarify the circumstances of an arrest. Reasonable avenues of investigation must be pursued especially when, as here, it is unclear whether a crime had even taken place.” BeVier v. Hucal, 806 F.2d 123, 128 (7th Cir. 1986). Whether the court of appeals erred when it did not require independent corroboration of an estranged-divorcing wife’s allegations 1 that her husband attempted to kill her before making a warrantless, nonjudicial approved arrest when the allegations were five (5) days old? il

Docket Entries

2021-10-04
Petition DENIED.
2021-08-11
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021.
2021-08-03
Reply of petitioner Charles Simonson filed.
2021-07-22
Brief of respondents Borough of Taylor, et al. in opposition filed.
2021-06-18
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 22, 2021)

Attorneys

Borough of Taylor, et al.
Mark Joseph KozlowskiMarshall Dennehey Warner Coleman and Goggin, Respondent
Mark Joseph KozlowskiMarshall Dennehey Warner Coleman and Goggin, Respondent
Charles Simonson
Cynthia L. PollickThe Employment Law Firm, Petitioner
Cynthia L. PollickThe Employment Law Firm, Petitioner