Civil Rights: Malicious prosecution claims against detective dismissed

Where a detective investigated allegations that three minors sexually assaulted a classmate with autism, and the three minors were ultimately arrested and detained before the charges were dropped, their malicious prosecution claim against the detective was dismissed. The arrest decision was not made by the detective, and there was probable cause for the arrest.

Background

Plaintiffs are three children, L.M., M.G. and E.R., who allege they were arrested and detained because of false accusations made by their classmate, A.D., who accused them of sexually assaulting Y.A., another classmate with autism. Plaintiffs bring malicious prosecution claims against Jonathan Graham, a detective who investigated the allegations, a § 1983 claim for unreasonable search against Michelle Smith, Loudoun County juvenile detention center superintendent and § 1983 claims and state law assault and battery claims against three employees at the detention center. Graham and Smith have filed motions to dismiss.

Evidence

As a threshold matter, the parties dispute whether the court can consider at this stage, without converting the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment, the additional evidence Graham attached to his motion: (1) an email chain between Y.A.’s family and the school reporting the allegations; (2) Graham’s affidavit in support of a search warrant; (3) a video recording of Y.A.’s forensic interview; (4) Graham’s case supplement; (5) a video recording of A.D.’s forensic interview and (6) an audio recording of Graham’s phone call with L.M.’s father.

The complaint expressly refers to statements made in the family’s report to the school of the bullying Y.A. suffered, A.D.’s forensic interview, Y.A.’s forensic interview and Graham’s phone call with L.M.’s father. Because the complaint makes allegations concerning these conversations, and because they are central to the claims at issue, the court is permitted to consider recordings of them at the motion to dismiss stage. Graham’s affidavit in support of a search warrant and his case supplement, moreover, are both “official public records pertinent to the plaintiffs’ claims.”

Graham

Under the § 1983 framework, malicious prosecution actions are analyzed as actions claiming unreasonable seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. A plaintiff “must allege that the defendant[s] (1) caused (2) a seizure of the plaintiff pursuant to legal process unsupported by probable cause, and (3) criminal proceedings terminated in plaintiff’s favor.” The malicious prosecution claim under Virginia law has one additional element, a showing of malice.

Both claims fail as a matter of law for two reasons. First, at the time of plaintiffs’ arrest, there was probable cause that they had committed aggravated sexual battery in violation of Virginia Code § 18.2-67.3. Graham had a detailed accusation of sexual abuse by a witness, a disabled victim that did not deny the witness’s accusations and positive identifications from the witness of the three suspects.

Even if probable cause were lacking here, at the very least, plaintiffs have failed to point to any binding authority that clearly establishes Graham unreasonably seized plaintiffs in these circumstances. Accordingly, Graham is entitled to qualified immunity on the § 1983 claim.

Second, even if there was not probable cause, plaintiffs have not alleged that Graham “caused” or “instigated” plaintiffs’ prosecution. Rather, it was an intake officer at juvenile intake — not Graham — who assessed the evidence, made the probable cause determination and filed the juvenile petitions that instigated plaintiffs’ prosecutions, plaintiffs have not alleged the requisite causation for these claims.

Smith

Plaintiffs bring a claim under § 1983 for unreasonable search against Smith. Any claim against Smith in her individual capacity must be dismissed because she was not personally involved in any of the searches, and plaintiffs have not alleged a failure to supervise or train.

The claim against Smith in her official capacity must also be dismissed because plaintiffs have not alleged “the existence of an official policy or custom that is fairly attributable to the municipality and that proximately caused the deprivation of their rights.”

Graham and Smith’s motions to dismiss granted.

L.M. v. Graham, Case No. 1:23-cv-01574, Apr. 23, 2024. EDVA at Alexandria (Nachmanoff). VLW 024-3-250. 15 pp.