Probable Cause Based on Mannerism Identification Bars Section 1983 False Arrest and Malicious Prosecution Claims

Introduction

In Heredia v. City of New York, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit addressed whether law enforcement officers possessed probable cause to arrest and prosecute Diego Heredia under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for burglary of an art gallery. Plaintiff‐appellant Diego Heredia, a former gallery manager, challenged the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the City of New York, the NYPD, two detectives, and several John Does on his claims of false arrest and malicious prosecution. The key issues were (1) whether the statements of former co‐workers identifying Heredia based on his “mannerisms, gait, and clothing” sufficed to establish probable cause to arrest, and (2) whether the grand jury indictment’s presumption of probable cause could be rebutted by evidence of bad-faith police conduct.

Summary of the Judgment

On March 31, 2025, a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the defendants. The court held:

False Arrest (42 U.S.C. § 1983): Probable cause existed as a matter of law because Detective Donegan received reliable information from two former gallery employees—one identifying Heredia by his mannerisms and another confirming his customary black clothing—plus evidence that Heredia knew alarm codes, possessed keys, and inquired about holiday closures.
Malicious Prosecution: The grand jury indictment created a conclusive presumption of probable cause. Heredia failed to present any evidence of fraud, perjury, suppression of evidence, or bad-faith police conduct to rebut that presumption under New York law.
All remaining claims were dismissed, and the judgment of the district court was affirmed in full.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The court’s decision rested on well-established Second Circuit doctrine:

Sotomayor v. City of New York, 713 F.3d 163 (2d Cir. 2013): Governs the standard of review on summary judgment in § 1983 cases.
Nick’s Garage, Inc. v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co., 875 F.3d 107 (2d Cir. 2017): Defines the movant’s burden at summary judgment.
Ackerson v. City of White Plains, 702 F.3d 15 (2d Cir. 2012): Articulates that “reasonably trustworthy information” is sufficient for probable cause.
Walczyk v. Rio, 496 F.3d 139 (2d Cir. 2007): Explains that, when undisputed, probable cause is a question of law.
Dufort v. City of New York, 874 F.3d 338 (2d Cir. 2017): Clarifies the mixed question nature of probable cause determinations.
Gonzalez v. City of Schenectady, 728 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 2013): Confirms that probable cause is a complete bar to false arrest claims.
Panetta v. Crowley, 460 F.3d 388 (2d Cir. 2006): Holds that officers need not continue investigation once probable cause is established.
McClellan v. Smith, 439 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. 2006) and Colon v. City of New York, 455 N.E.2d 1248 (N.Y. 1983): Establish the grand jury indictment’s presumption of probable cause and the narrow grounds to rebut it under New York law.

Legal Reasoning

1. Probable Cause for False Arrest
Probable cause exists when an officer is supplied with “reasonably trustworthy information” that would lead a prudent person to believe an offense has been committed. Here:

Jimenez’s identification by mannerisms and gait was deemed inherently reliable.
Acosta’s confirmation of matching black clothing reinforced that identification.
Heredia’s access to alarm codes, gallery keys, and pre‐burglary text messages provided corroborative context.

The panel stressed that the standard does not demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt nor require continued investigation once probable cause is established (Panetta).

2. Malicious Prosecution
Under § 1983, success on a malicious prosecution claim requires lack of probable cause under state law. A grand jury indictment creates a rebuttable presumption of probable cause. To overcome it, a plaintiff must show “fraud, perjury, suppression of evidence or other police conduct undertaken in bad faith” (Colon). Heredia offered no evidence of bad faith or misconduct; mere speculation that the grand jury was misinformed was insufficient.

Impact

This decision underscores two significant principles for future § 1983 litigation:

Eyewitness Identification Beyond Facial Recognition: Identification based on mannerisms and gait, when corroborated by other facts, can satisfy the probable cause threshold.
Robust Protection of Grand Jury Indictments: Defendants enjoy a strong presumption of probable cause once an indictment issues. Plaintiffs must present concrete evidence of bad faith to proceed on malicious prosecution claims.

Law enforcement agencies may rely confidently on employee identifications by non-facial characteristics, provided there is corroboration and no indication of police misconduct. Plaintiffs asserting false arrest or malicious prosecution must marshal substantive contrary evidence early in the case to avoid summary dismissal.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Probable Cause: A reasonable belief, based on facts and circumstances, that a crime has been or is being committed. Lower than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Summary Judgment: A court decision without a full trial when there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
42 U.S.C. § 1983: Federal statute allowing individuals to sue state or local officials who violate their constitutional rights under color of law.
Malicious Prosecution: A claim that prosecutors or police initiated a criminal proceeding without probable cause, pursuing it in bad faith and causing damages.
Grand Jury Indictment Presumption: In New York, an indictment by a grand jury is prima facie evidence of probable cause, rebuttable only by proof of fraud, perjury, or similar misconduct.

Conclusion

Heredia v. City of New York reaffirms that:

An officer’s receipt of a reliable eyewitness identification—whether based on facial features or other distinctive traits—plus corroborative circumstances, establishes probable cause for arrest.
A grand jury indictment creates a formidable shield against malicious prosecution claims absent specific evidence of prosecutorial or police wrongdoing.

This summary order thus provides clear guidance on the sufficiency of mannerism‐based identifications for probable cause and the high bar plaintiffs face in challenging prosecutions once the grand jury has indicted.