Gisondi v. Town of Harrison, 72 N.Y.2d 280 (1988)
Police officers do not have to disclose every discrepancy or potential weakness in their case when applying for an arrest warrant or testifying at a felony hearing; only egregious deviations from accepted practices or statutory requirements amount to improper concealment that forfeits immunity.
Summary
Gisondi sued the Town of Harrison for false arrest, imprisonment, and malicious prosecution, alleging police officers falsified facts and withheld exculpatory information during warrant applications and a felony hearing. The New York Court of Appeals held that the police did not improperly conceal evidence. The victim identified Gisondi as her rapist, and two courts found probable cause to arrest him and hold him for the Grand Jury. The court found that the discrepancies in the victim’s identification and the alibi were not substantial enough to require the police to disclose them. The court emphasized that police do not have to disclose everything they know and are afforded prosecutorial discretion. Because Gisondi failed to establish that the police conduct deviated egregiously from accepted practices, the court reversed the jury’s verdict for Gisondi and dismissed the complaint.
Facts
A woman was raped in Harrison, NY, on August 8, 1979. She described her assailant and his car to the police. Based on the description, the investigating officer created a photo array, from which the victim identified Gisondi. The victim also identified a Thunderbird at Gisondi’s residence as the car used in the rape. Gisondi was 19, while the victim described her assailant as 35-40. He had no scratches on his face when arrested. Gisondi claimed he was in Massachusetts at the time of the rape and provided evidence of a vehicle inspection and temporary driver’s license issued there around the time of the incident.
Procedural History
The officer obtained an arrest warrant based on the victim’s identification, and Gisondi was arrested. At a felony hearing, the victim again identified Gisondi, but Gisondi presented alibi witnesses. The court ordered Gisondi held for the Grand Jury, which later dismissed the charges. Gisondi then sued the town. A jury returned a verdict for Gisondi, but the Appellate Division reversed, finding that Gisondi failed to establish a prima facie case that the police falsified facts or withheld exculpatory evidence. Gisondi appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the evidence at trial was sufficient to establish a prima facie case that the police improperly withheld evidence from the courts in applying for an arrest warrant and testifying at a felony hearing, thus forfeiting their right to claim the immunity generally available to those acting in reliance on court orders.
Holding
No, because the police did not deviate egregiously from statutory requirements or accepted practices applicable in criminal cases.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that there is a presumption that the police acted with probable cause because the victim positively identified Gisondi and his car, and two courts found probable cause existed. This presumption could only be rebutted by proof that the court orders were the result of fraud, perjury, or suppression of evidence by the police. The court addressed Gisondi’s claims that the police should have disclosed the discrepancies in the victim’s identification (age, no scratches, car type) and investigated/disclosed his alibi. The court stated that the police are not required to disclose all of their evidence in an application for an arrest warrant or at a felony hearing and are not generally required to disclose all discrepancies or potential weaknesses in the case uncovered during the investigation. The court stated, “What is required is proof that the police conduct deviated egregiously from statutory requirements or accepted practices applicable in criminal cases.” Because the alibi was presented to the court by the defense, there was no withholding of information. The court also stated that the police need not investigate every asserted alibi. In sum, the plaintiff’s proof was insufficient as a matter of law to establish a prima facie case of fraud or concealment on the part of the police.