Probable Cause Unshaken by Unreviewed Video Evidence: The Alberty v. Hunter Doctrine

Alberty v. Hunter, No. 23-7564-cv, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (decided 21 July 2025)

Introduction

Alberty v. Hunter arose from an unusual incident during an interstate bus trip in which Wendy Alberty, a Peter Pan bus driver, inadvertently—or so she claimed—locked a passenger inside the luggage compartment. Responding Connecticut State Police officers rescued the passenger, arrested Alberty and eventually charged her with reckless endangerment, breach of the peace, and unlawful restraint. All criminal charges were later nolle prosequi, prompting Alberty to sue three officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Connecticut tort law for (i) false arrest, (ii) malicious prosecution, and (iii) retaliatory prosecution based on her refusal to give a custodial statement without counsel.

The District Court granted summary judgment to the officers, and on appeal the Second Circuit affirmed in full. In doing so, the Court crystallised a new doctrinal point: the mere existence and ready accessibility of video evidence, coupled with another officer’s opinion that the incident appears “accidental,” does not dissipate probable cause when the video has not yet been viewed and is not plainly exculpatory on its face. This “Alberty Doctrine” clarifies the scope of an officer’s duty to investigate potentially exculpatory material before making—or continuing—an arrest or prosecution.

Summary of the Judgment

False Arrest: Probable cause existed to arrest Alberty for reckless endangerment and breach of the peace based on the victim’s 911 call, on-scene identification, and corroborating statements by the relief driver.
Malicious Prosecution: Even after learning that a surveillance video existed and that a junior trooper thought the incident looked accidental, the defendants retained probable cause for all three charges. The Court held that the unviewed video and the junior trooper’s opinion were not “plainly exculpatory” and therefore did not negate probable cause.
Retaliatory Prosecution: Because probable cause defeated the malicious prosecution claim, it likewise defeated the First Amendment retaliatory-prosecution theory.
Holding: The Second Circuit affirmed summary judgment, expressly adopting the principle that officers are not required to delay an arrest or prosecution to review unviewed video footage unless the footage would, by its very nature, be plainly exculpatory.

Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

The panel anchored its reasoning in a line of Supreme Court and Second Circuit authorities on probable cause and the treatment of potentially exculpatory evidence:

Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366 (2003) – Probable cause judged from perspective of a reasonable officer under totality of circumstances.
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) – “Fair probability” standard, not scientific certainty, governs probable-cause analysis.
Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237 (2013) – Probable cause is “common-sensical” and “all-things-considered.”
Panetta v. Crowley, 460 F.3d 388 (2d Cir. 2006) – Officers may not ignore “plainly exculpatory” evidence, but need not rule out every innocent explanation.
Ricciutti v. N.Y. City Transit Auth., 124 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 1997) – No duty to explore every conceivable claim of innocence prior to arrest.
Triolo v. Nassau County, 24 F.4th 98 (2d Cir. 2022) – Reinforces absence of an affirmative duty to hunt for exculpatory evidence.
Krause v. Bennett, 887 F.2d 362 (2d Cir. 1989) – Probable cause need not guarantee a successful prosecution.
Walston v. City of New York, 289 F. Supp. 3d 398 (E.D.N.Y. 2018), aff’d 754 F. App’x 65 (2d Cir. 2019) – No categorical requirement to review surveillance video.

The Court distinguished Baptiste v. J.C. Penney Co., 147 F.3d 1252 (10th Cir. 1998), which Alberty relied upon for a contrary rule, noting that the Tenth Circuit itself has called Baptiste’s “must-watch-video” statement dicta (Craft v. White, 840 F. App’x 372 (10th Cir. 2021)).

B. Legal Reasoning

Totality-of-the-Circumstances Assessment
The Court meticulously chronicled what the arresting officers knew at the critical moments: (a) a frantic 911 call; (b) the passenger’s immediate on-scene identification of Alberty; (c) corroboration from the relief driver about policy violations; and (d) Alberty’s own admission that she had opened and then closed the compartment. These data satisfied the “fair probability” threshold for both reckless endangerment and breach of peace.
Dissipation Doctrine
Probable cause can evaporate if “plainly exculpatory” evidence later emerges (Kinzer v. Jackson). The Court held that the surveillance video and Gonzalez’s characterisation of it were not plainly exculpatory: the footage merely raised a competing inference of inadvertence but simultaneously buttressed elements of the crimes charged (quick closure, laughter, policy breach).
No Duty to View Available Video Absent Plain Exculpation
Stressing practicality, the panel declared that officers “had no duty to travel to the bus station and watch the video before arresting.” This pronouncement converts prior district-court dicta (Walston) into binding circuit precedent and will guide future qualified-immunity and probable-cause disputes.
Effect on Mens Rea Inference
Even if the closure was “accidental,” the undisputed facts created at least a “reckless” mental state. For unlawful restraint (intentional), the Court found the junior officer’s “accidental” remark too attenuated to negate the stronger evidence of intent (passenger’s statement that Alberty laughed as she closed the door).
First Amendment Overlay
Applying Hartman v. Moore, the Court held that probable cause also defeated the retaliatory-prosecution theory—no “Nieves exception” because Alberty offered no comparator evidence of similarly situated non-speakers escaping prosecution.

C. Likely Impact of the Decision

Clarifies Investigatory Duties: Officers within the Second Circuit now have explicit appellate authority that mere awareness of potentially exculpatory video does not mandate immediate review unless the video is inherently exculpatory.
Raises Bar for Plaintiffs in Video-Era Litigation: Plaintiffs alleging false arrest or malicious prosecution cannot rely solely on the existence of unreviewed video footage to argue dissipation of probable cause; they must show that the footage actually and plainly exculpates them.
Guidance on Junior-Officer Opinions: Subjective assessments by subordinate officers (e.g., “this looks accidental”) carry limited weight in the probable-cause calculus unless backed by incontrovertible facts.
Integration with Qualified Immunity: The ruling’s “no-duty-to-view” doctrine will likely fortify qualified-immunity defenses where plaintiffs argue that officers should have canvassed digital evidence before acting.
State-Law Harmony: Reinforces Connecticut’s alignment with federal standards on probable cause, promoting uniformity across dual-jurisdiction § 1983 and state-tort claims.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Probable Cause: A reasonable belief, based on facts and circumstances, that a crime has been, is being, or will be committed; less than “proof beyond a reasonable doubt,” more than mere suspicion.
Dissipation of Probable Cause: The idea that probable cause, once acquired, can disappear if new evidence plainly shows the suspect is not guilty. Evidence must be so clear that no reasonable officer could believe a crime occurred.
Plainly Exculpatory Evidence: Evidence demonstrating that the suspect cannot, as a matter of law, be guilty of the offense—e.g., iron-clad alibi, DNA excluding the suspect, or a video unequivocally showing innocence.
Recklessness vs. Negligence: Negligence is a failure to perceive a substantial risk; recklessness is conscious disregard of that risk—closer to intentional wrongdoing, hence easier for prosecutors to prove than intent, but harder than negligence.
Malicious Prosecution: A claim that police or prosecutors commenced or continued a criminal proceeding without probable cause and with malice, resulting in a favorable termination for the accused.
Retaliatory Prosecution: A First Amendment claim alleging that the government prosecuted someone to punish her for protected speech or conduct. Probable cause is a near-absolute defense.

Conclusion

Alberty v. Hunter cements a pragmatic rule for the digital-surveillance age: unless unreviewed video evidence is facially exculpatory, officers are not constitutionally obligated to delay arrests or prosecutions to watch it. By harmonising Connecticut law with federal precedent, the Second Circuit fortifies the probable-cause shield against false-arrest, malicious-prosecution, and retaliatory-prosecution suits. Going forward, litigants must grapple with the “Alberty Doctrine” when video footage lurks in the evidentiary wings— its mere existence will rarely, without more, unravel an officer’s objectively reasonable belief that a crime occurred.